Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

DEATH OF A MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House:

I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Sir George Harvey, Knight, late Member for the Borough of Lambeth, Kennington Division, and desire to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords].

Conway Gas Bill [Lords].

Methodist Church Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill,

Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock Bill,

Read the third time, and passed.

Jarrow Corporation Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING AND SHIPBUILDING.

GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.

Miss Ward: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now

announce the Government's policy regarding shipping and shipbuilding?

Mr. David Adams: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to be in a position to make a statement relative to the intentions of the Government as to assistance to British shipping?

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, before coming to a decision on the nature of the assistance to be afforded British shipping, he will satisfy himself that the internal organisation of the Mercantile Marine is satisfactory; and whether, preceding the construction of more tonnage, he will take steps to prevent a rise in shipbuilding costs?

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the President of the Board of Trade when the proposals of the Government to deal with depression in the shipbuilding industry will be announced?

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet in a position to announce the Government's proposals for the relief of the British shipbuilding industry; whether, in finally framing these proposals, he will bear in mind the advisability of encouraging owners not to scrap old ships but to lay them up in order to have an ample reserve of tonnage for any emergency; and whether he will take all possible steps to secure that British shipbuilders in future get the orders to build the millions of tons of merchant ships that are now being built abroad?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): With the permission of the House, I will make a statement at the end of Questions.

Mr. Mathers (for Mr. Garro Jones): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the claims of Scottish shipbuilding ports, such as Aberdeen, have now been fully and firmly pressed upon the Government in that inquiry of which the result is about to be published?

Mr. Stanley: The Government have taken into account the position in the shipbuilding industry as a whole, including the yards in Scotland, and I would suggest that the hon. Member awaits the statement which I am making later.

Later—

Mr. Stanley: I need not apologise to the House for taking the earliest possible opportunity of informing it of the decisions the Government have reached regarding the shipping and shipbuilding industries. The importance of these industries does not only rest on the contribution they make to the economic resources of the country and the volume of skilled employment which they give; they are also an essential part of our national defences. It is in the light of these considerations that the Government have examined the representations which have been made to them, and I am now able to give an outline of the proposals which the Government will put before Parliament. The details of the proposals will require further discussion with the interests concerned before the necessary legislation can be drafted, but, in present circumstances, it is essential that the industries should know at the earliest possible moment what action the Government are prepared to take. The measures of assistance proposed apply to ships registered in the United Kingdom.
It is proposed to make available a sum of £2,750,000 a year for a period of five years by way of subsidy for tramp shipping including vessels in the deep sea and near trades but not the coasting trade. The subsidy scheme will follow the general lines of that which was in operation under the British Shipping (Assistance) Acts, 1935–37, but with some alterations mainly as the result of adopting a five-year period instead of an annual basis. In each year the amount of subsidy will be subject to an arrangement for determining by reference to the index number of shipping freights whether subsidy should be paid in full or paid at a reduced rate or not paid. Conditions will be attached to the subsidy, similar to those attaching to the previous subsidy, regarding employment of British crews, compliance with National Maritime Board Agreements where applicable, and maintenance of co-operation.
As a condition of making the subsidy available, the Government will expect the industry to do its utmost to promote international measures tending to adjust the supply of tramp tonnage to the demand so as to safeguard the level of freight rates. The industry will also be

expected to organise itself so as to satisfy the Government that at the end of the subsidy period it will be in a better position than it now is to maintain itself without Government financal assistance.
It is proposed to appoint an Advisory Committee for an experimental period of two years to examine and advise the Government regarding requests for assistance from liner companies whose services are endangered by foreign competition which derives its strength from Government financial aid or some other similar cause. The decision whether to give assistance or not would rest with the Government. Parliament will be asked to make financial provision to enable the Government to grant financial assistance promptly in cases where the Government decide that such assistance is necessary. As a condition of establishing this Committee, the Government will expect the liner section of the industry so to organise itself as to be in a better position to defend itself without Government financial assistance.
As regards cases in which other parts of the British Commonwealth are concerned, the United Kingdom Government will bear in mind the recommendation adopted by the Imperial Conference in 1937 that where undue assistance is given by a foreign Government to the serious prejudice and danger of British shipping there should be consultation between the Governments of the Commonwealth concerned.
The measures of assistance already referred to might be expected to result in due course in the placing of orders for new ships. But it must be some time before measures of this kind can take effect, and the need for new shipbuilding orders is urgent, as shipbuilding capacity must be maintained. Two further proposals will be made to ensure that ships shall be built forthwith.
To give more confidence to the shipowner it is proposed to provide funds from which owners of tramps and cargo liners (other than refrigerated or passenger vessels) ordered in the next few months from United Kingdom shipbuilders would receive a grant of an appropriate amount in each of the next five years, with the exception of any year in which earnings were such as to make a grant unnecessary. The amount to be used for these


grants would not exceed £500,000 a year during the five-year period. The scheme for this purpose will require to be carefully worked out, particularly as regards the amount and basis of the annual payments, and the method of relating the payment, if any, that should be made in any year to conditions in that year. In this connection, I should add that the Government have received assurances from the shipbuilding, marine engineering and iron and steel industries that they will not raise prices by reason of the increased placing of shipbuilding orders which I hope will result from the Government's schemes of assistance, and that they will co-operate fully in adjusting prices to the lowest possible level.
The Government propose also to ask Parliament to make available a sum of £10,000,000 for loans to shipowners over a period of two years on favourable terms for the purpose of building in Great Britain tramps and cargo liners (other than refrigerated vessels and passenger vessels), including tramps and cargo liners intended for the coasting trade. The loans would be made on financial terms similar to those under the "Scrap and Build" Scheme which was authorised by the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935, but no condition as to scrapping old vessels will be attached to them. As under that scheme, an Advisory Committee will be established to examine applications for loans, and the Board of Trade will have to be satisfied in each case that the grant of a loan will promote the general interests of British shipping.
In order to encourage owners to place orders now it will be proposed in the legislation authorising these two schemes that any vessels ordered after to-day's date will not be debarred from consideration for assistance under the schemes, provided that they are of the kinds covered by the schemes.
While the Government have reached the conclusion that in present circumstances and as a temporary measure financial assistance under the schemes outlined above is necessary in order to ensure the provision of new ships for our merchant fleet and increased work for our shipyards, they will require the shipping and shipbuilding industries to consider together the possibility of devising means for securing in the future the more regular ordering of new tonnage.
The Government have decided that they are unable to provide financial assistance for the coasting trade other than participation so far as coasting tramps and cargo liners are concerned in the loans at favourable rates of interest to be provided from the £10,000,000, which the House is to be asked to make available for new building. Steps are being taken, however, to encourage municipal or other public authorities, etc., to ensure that British tonnage is used for their coastwise shipments. Apart from this the representations of the coasting trade regarding railway and road competition and regarding the importance of effective co-ordination between the railways, road hauliers, canals and coasting shipping will receive the Government's careful and sympathetic consideration. The Government do not propose any general measures of assistance for tankers.
In addition to the financial assistance outlined above the Government will continue to take all possible steps to promote the interests of British shipping in connection with trade negotiations and other discussions with foreign Governments.
Finally, the Government have decided that the present situation calls for a further exceptional measure to increase the amount of tonnage under the British flag. They accordingly propose to ask Parliament to make a sum of £2,000,000 available for the purchase of suitable vessels on the United Kingdom register which, though still capable of service, would otherwise be sold to foreign owners or for breaking-up. Vessels so purchased would not be brought out for trading except in an emergency, but would be maintained in condition so that they could be brought out for use when required.
It will be a condition of the assistance to be made available for tramps and cargo liners that the owners of such vessels shall offer to the Government any vessels they may propose to scrap or to sell to foreign buyers. The details of the scheme, particularly regarding arrangements for purchase and sale of the vessels and for their maintenance, are under discussion with the shipping industry.
The legislation necessary to give effect to these various proposals will be introduced as soon as possible.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask whether the organisation of the shipping industry to which the right hon. Gentleman has


alluded in his reply is to precede the grant of financial assistance, or whether financial assistance will be granted to the industry unconditionally? Also, whether as regards the coasting trade, for which there is to be no financial assistance, he proposes to make any restriction on the foreign coasting trade which is unfairly competing with the coasting trade of this country; and, also, whether as regards the laid-up vessels, for which a £2,000,000 grant is provided, he will say who will be responsible for the maintenance and the upkeep of the vessels?

Mr. Stanley: As regards the first question, obviously the grant of this assistance is urgent, whereas proposals for the reorganisation of the shipping industry will take considerable time. Therefore, the legislation will be introduced as early as possible, and the discussions with regard to the possibility of reorganisation will, I hope, begin at an early moment. As regards the coasting shipping, they deliberately did not put forward any suggestion for an alteration with regard to foreign ships. With regard to laid-up tonnage, the responsibility for the maintenance of that reserve will fall on the Government.

Sir Percy Harris: Will it be made quite clear that none of this subsidy will be used to increase dividends but will be entirely used for strengthening the shipping services?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member can be assured that it will be used for the strengthening of our shipping services.

Mr. Storey: As representing a constituency in which there are 1,000 unemployed shipyard workers, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether steps will be taken to ensure that orders for ships to be built by Government assistance will be placed in those yards which do not benefit from naval construction?

Mr. Stanley: The object of the proposal is to stimulate the normal demand for shipping, and the hon. Member can be assured that his point will be taken into consideration.

Mr. Kirkwood: While thanking the President for his reply, may I ask him if he will reply to the latter part of my question in which I point out that 7,000,000 tons of shipping is being built

abroad? What action are the Government going to take with regard to this 7,000,000 tons?

Mr. Stanley: Of course any ship-owner who now orders shipping abroad will not get any advantage from the financial proposals I am now proposing in order to assist shipbuilding.

Mr. Kirkwood: Are the Government going to take any action to see whether it is possible to bring back some of this 7,000,000 tons of shipping now being built abroad, so that the ships may be built in this country?

Mr. Stanley: There is no question of bringing back to this country ships which are in the middle of being built abroad.

Miss Ward: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, may I ask whether in the proposals to be brought before Parliament the ship-repairing industry will be borne in mind? In his statement he referred only to shipping and shipbuilding; and ship-repairing is an integral part of the industry?

Mr. Stanley: I do not think the hon. Lady will expect a reply now, but I will bear the point in mind.

Mr. Mathers: Among the interests still to be consulted, does the right hon. Gentleman include the trade unions? May I also ask whether he will be laying down conditions that any vessels built under the subsidy must not subsequently be transferred from the British flag, as so many vessels have been in recent times?

Mr. Stanley: As regards the first supplementary question, I have, as a matter of fact, been in consultation with the representatives of the Seamen's Union and I have assurred them that I shall be only too glad of their assistance in working out the details of the scheme. As regards the second point, the hon. Member will realise that under the new provisions it will be necessary for any ship-owner owning a ship in the classes referred to, whether they receive assistance or not, if they wish to sell a ship off the United Kingdom register, to offer it to the Government first.

Captain Arthur Evans: Arising out of that part of the statement dealing with the subsidy for cargo liners and liners trading between this country and the Dominions, may I enquire whether the Dominion


Governments are to be asked to make a contribution towards the subsidy? With regard to that part of the statement relating to the subsidy for shipbuilding, will there be any clause containing provisions which will give encouragement to ship-owners to order coal-burning or dual fuel-burning vessels as against oil-burning vessels?

Mr. Stanley: With regard to the first question, the hon. Gentleman will realise that as far as liners are concerned it will be necessary for each specific case to be made out to this committee in respect of each individual service which is threatened by subsidised competition, and it will be for the Government, of course, when that case is made out, to consider whether it is an appropriate case in which they could ask a Dominion Government to assist them. With regard to the second question, about coal-burning, it has been brought to my notice and it will be one of the subjects that I shall discuss during the negotiations with regard to the details of the scheme.

Viscountess Astor: Will it be made widely known that the conditions in these new ships are to be much better than those in the old? Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons why there is a shortage of merchant seamen is because of the appalling conditions in the old ships? Will he make it very well known that the conditions in the new ships will be much better, as that would have a tremendous effect on recruitment?

Mr. Stanley: The Noble Lady is quite right. Any new ships built under the scheme will have to conform to the new requirements, which will be a great advance on anything previously done.

Mr. A. Edwards: Is it proposed to remove the restrictions imposed by Shipbuilding Securities, Limited, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Middlesbrough, which used to be an important shipbuilding centre, has had every shipyard closed down through these restrictions?

Mr. Stanley: That is quite a different question. I am confident that these proposals will lead to a large number of orders being placed, but I cannot hope that they will lead to orders of such magnitude that the existing yards will not be able to build the ships.

Mr. Dingle Foot: Is it not already clear that "Where the carcase is, there will the eagles be"?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Members who ask me questions on this subject are representing their constituencies with the same sincerity that the hon. Member felt when he asked me a question about the India Agreement earlier this afternoon.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to know whether the Minister in working out the details of the scheme will provide Members of this House with the names of supporters on the Government benches who are going to benefit?

Mr. Leach: Will any obligation be placed on the recipients of the subsidy with regard to wages and conditions?

Mr. Stanley: The subsidy will be paid only if the National Maritime Board conditions are observed.

PACIFIC CONFERENCE, NEW ZEALAND.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider strengthening the representation at the forthcoming Pacific Conference, in view of the increase in the gravity of the international situation since the conference was summoned?

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the forthcoming conference in New Zealand is suitable to deal with the questions which are to be discussed.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the events which have transpired since the conference was summoned have rendered it of far greater importance than was originally contemplated; and, from that point of view, would he not consider strengthening the representation in order to make it one of first-rate importance?

The Prime Minister: The matter has been very carefully considered, and we are satisfied that we have the right composition.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

DEBENTURE RECEIVERSHIPS (REMUNERATION).

Sir George Broadbridge: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether


his attention has been called to the remuneration and expenses paid to receivers appointed by debenture holders of companies; will he consider introducing legislation to amend Part VI of the Companies Act, 1929, so as to provide for a standard scale of fees and expenses, and also for the notification to the shareholders of such companies of a statement of receipts and expenses respecting such receivership; and that, in the event of there being no assets for distribution to the shareholders, a liquidator be appointed by the court to wind up such company?

Mr. Stanley: I have received no complaints on the matter referred to by my hon. Friend. Every receiver appointed by debenture holders is required to file an abstract of his receipts and payments with the Registrar of Companies every six months and these abstracts are open to inspection. Where a receiver has been appointed by debenture holders and the company subsequently goes into liquidation, it is open to the liquidator to apply to the court to fix the amount of the receiver's remuneration. If there is no liquidation, it is always open to a creditor or shareholder of a company to present a petition to the court for a compulsory winding-up order. In the circumstances, I see no ground for legislation. The points raised in the question have, however, been noted for consideration when the amendment of the Companies Act, 1929, is under review.

WOVEN LABEL AND RIBBON TRADE.

Captain Strickland: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the importance of the woven label and ribbon trade and of the cut- price competition of foreign imports, he will cause separate accounts to be taken in the Board of Trade returns of the quantity so imported?

Mr. Stanley: I shall be glad to consider the practicability of arranging for a separate record to be kept of imports of the goods in question, but I am afraid that any change in the present form of the trade accounts could only be brought into force as from 1st January next.

FILM INDUSTRY.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received any communication from the Films Council relating to variation of the

quota; whether any recommendation is made; and whether the Board of Trade have approved such recommendation or otherwise?

Mr. Stanley: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member last Tuesday.

Mr. Williams: Have the Films Council yet discussed this problem, and have the Board of Trade any knowledge of any decision which the council has reached?

Mr. Stanley: I understand that they have already discussed it and intend to discuss it again. I have no doubt that as soon as they reach a decision they will communicate it to me.

Mr. Day: Cannot the Films Council be asked to hurry up, as this is a very serious matter?

Mr. Stanley: They must give adequate consideration to this important matter. Even if they recommend a change and the Government accept it, no change can be made until 1st October next.

Mr. Denville: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that before the film "Sword of Honour" is permitted to be shown in provincial cinema theatres the Butcher Film Distributors have ordered that every scene showing the Union Jack must be cut out; whether he will ask the Films Advisory Council to inquire what conditions are imposed by distributors on exhibitors and report as to what steps should be taken to put an end to this practice, and in the meantime confer with distributors and exhibitors to ensure that no similar conditions should be imposed in future?

Mr. Stanley: I understand that the distributors concerned have issued a statement to the effect that no such instructions were given. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Denville: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the film distributors have passed on the blame to the renters and exhibitors who indignantly deny any objection to the title or the Union Jack?

Mr. Stanley: Everyone seems to have denied everything.

ANGLO-INDIAN TRADE AGREEMENT.

Mr. Foot: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and


the Government of India have yet agreed upon the date for bringing into force the Anglo-Indian Trade Agreement; and what, if any, legislative measures will require to be taken in the United Kingdom in order to implement the said agreement?

Mr. Stanley: Article 16 of the agreement provides that it shall come into force on a date to be mutually agreed between the two Governments, and that meanwhile the two Governments will apply its provisions as far as possible. The date in question has not yet been formally agreed upon. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, no legislation is required to enable immediate effect to be given to the provisions of the agreement other than those expressed to come into force at a future date. For these and for certain formal purposes legislation will be required before the end of this session.

Mr. Foot: Is it intended that the House shall have an opportunity of considering the agreement before it comes into effect?

Mr. Stanley: The position in regard to agreements and the responsibility of the Government has often been discussed in the House. There will be some legislation connected with this agreement which will enable the matter to be discussed.

Mr. Foots: Is it not a fact that this agreement runs for three years and ties our hands for that time? Ought not the House, therefore, to have an opportunity of looking into it?

Mr. Stanley: It has always been laid down that agreements of this kind are the responsibility of the Government. I am responsible to the House for the Board of Trade and for the course taken by the Government.

Mr. Foot: Is it not a fact that until 1932 there was always a definition clause to these agreements?

BRITISH AND GERMAN INDUSTRIAL GROUPS (NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state the policy of the Government on the agreement reached between representatives of British and German industry; whether further negotiations are proceeding; and whether he can give an assurance that no final decision

will be taken without the approval of hon. Members?

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade the present position with regard to trade agreements and negotiations contemplated, or arranged, with Germany?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he now has any further statement to make respecting the trade agreement between the Federation of British Industries and the Reichsgruppe Industrie of Germany; and whether any negotiations between particular industries, especially those connected with the manufacture of war materials, are still in progress?

Mr. Stanley: I have discussed this matter with representatives of the Federation of British Industries and informed them that while there can be no doubt regarding the value of the preliminary work they have accomplished, recent political developments have created a situation which, while it lasts, has made further progress impossible.

Mr. Shinwell: Can we have an assurance that, should there be any change in the political situation which will warrant proceeding further with this matter, nothing definite will be clone until the House has had an opportunity of considering it?

Mr. Stanley: That is really a hypothetical question.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of my question?

Mr. Stanley: I have already informed the House that I told the Federation that at the present moment further progress is impossible.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any kind of trade agreement or any kind of negotiations which are being carried on now that are likely to cover war materials?

Mr. Stanley: I could not say without notice.

Mr. Mander: Does it cover the Coal Agreement?

Mr. Stanley: The Coal Agreement is a separate point. Such discussions as would have taken place would have been


not with Germany, but with Poland. However, I understand that at present no date has been fixed for any future meeting.

Mr. Neil Maclean: If any agreement is come to between the Federation of British Industries and the German group will the President of the Board of Trade inform the House before there is any attempt to put it into operation?

CENSUS OF DISTRIBUTION.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements his Department has considered and/or made for the holding of a national census of distribution?

Mr. Stanley: Proposals for the holding of a census of distribution have been considered, but I am not satisfied that there is sufficiently general support for the proposals to justify the introduction of the necessary legislation.

Mr. Day: Has consideration been given to the results of such a census in other countries, and does the Minister think that the results obtained there would also be obtained in this country?

Mr. Stanley: It would be very expensive and would cost probably £500,000. It is not a project on which the Government could embark unless there were clear indications that it was wanted by the interests concerned.

RUMANIA (TRADE MISSION).

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the detailed arrangements in connection with the proposed trade mission to Rumania have now been completed, and whether he can state the date when the mission will leave for Rumania?

Mr. Stanley: The arrangements are not yet complete, and consequently I am unable to state a date.

Mr. Henderson: When, will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement?

Mr. Stanley: As soon as possible.

Mr. Thorne: Does the right hon. Gentle man know that he is fiddling while Rome is burning?

Mr. Stanley: This is not a question of Rome but of Rumania.

Mr. Mander: In view of the extreme and obvious urgency of this matter cannot the President of the Board of Trade say that the delegation is going at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Stanley: I have said that already.

DENMARK.

Mr. Maxwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any agreement has been reached with Denmark regarding increased purchases by that coontry from the United Kingdom?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir. Certain trade matters have recently been the subject of discussion with the competent Danish authorities. I am glad to be able to inform the House that the Danish Government have made an offer which has been accepted by His Majesty's Government, to provide facilities during 1939 for increasing by about 23,000,000 kroner the imports of a wide range of United Kingdom goods.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Does that range include agricultural products?

Mr. Stanley: It is a very wide list, but, in agreement with the Danish Government, particulars of it have always been kept confidential.

FABRIC GLOVES (DOMINION IMPORTS).

Mr. Liddall: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number and value of fabric gloves of cotton, and artificial silk, respectively, imported into Canada, Australia, Union of South Africa, and New Zealand, from Great Britain, Germany, and Czecho-Slovakia, during the years 1936, 1937, and 1938, or the last convenient period?

Mr. Stanley: As the desired information is not available from the trade returns of the Dominions concerned, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the exports of cotton and artificial silk gloves to these Dominions from the countries mentioned, so far as the information is available from the respective trade returns of the exporting countries for the years 1936 to 1938.

Following are the particulars:

Country and Description.
Quantity.
Value.



1936.
1937.
1938.
1936.
1937.
1938.



Dozen pairs.
Dozen pairs.
Dozen pairs.
£
£
£


UNITED KINGDOM: Gloves wholly or partly cut out of fabric containing cotton, and sewn up (but not including gloves known as astrachan gloves or gloves in which the fabric containing cotton is present in the lining only, or gloves made in whole or in part of leather), and fabric containing cotton shaped for making into or lining gloves:








to Canada
3,542
2,921
2,791
4,250
3,736
3,376


to Australia
1,381
2,346
1,911
1,285
2,008
2,058


to Union of South Africa …
2,075
3,849
2,042
1,357
2,036
1,200


to New Zealand
1,058
1743
980
890
1,631
1,181


Gloves of other textile materials;



to Canada
486
454
128
514
428
211


to Australia
789
400
290
697
270
305


to Union of South Africa
1,224
1,027
1,122
1,262
953
1,026


to New Zealand
1,042
293
694
979
307
581


GERMANY:



Gloves woven and knitted—



cotton (including hair nets):
Quintals.
Quintals.
Quintals.
'000 R.M.
'000 R.M.
'000 R.M.


to Canada
339
277
197
706
547
355


to Australia
405
372
341
758
701
634


Union of south Africa
20
22
22
43
51
47


to New Zealand
61
68
40
105
117
67


Gloves woven and knitted of artificial silk and of pure silk:



to Canada
152
102
81
375
240
186


to Australia
301
328
265
687
678
561


to Union of South Africa
28
25
20
83
68
53


to New Zealand
51
62
31
114
140
71


CZECHO-SLOVAKIA


Jan.-Aug.


Jan.-Aug.


Gloves—cotton:
Pairs.
Pairs,
Pairs.
'000 K.C.
'000 K.C.
'000 K.C.


to Canada
895,645
228,960
956,711
4,486
7,639
 6,379


to Australia
118,093
120,370
 Not available.
635
689
 Not available


to Union of South Africa
53,261
44,15999
280
303


to New Zealand
14,360
18,352
91
118


Gloves of artificial silk without admixture of floss silk:



to Canada
151,775
302,658
283,325
746
1,287
1,406.


to Australia
56,864
127,610
87,615
315
699
489


to Union of South Africa
58,509
63,293
Not available.
361
348
Not available.


to New Zealand
6,157
10,072
40
63


Gloves of silk and artificial silk mixed with other materials:



to Canada
19,867
6,930
Not available.
104
35
Not available.


to Australia
—
644
—
6


to Union of South Africa
1
2,751
—
17


to New Zealand
2,064
54
11
1

NOTE, — Mean quoted rates of exchange were as follows

Germany, 1936–12.35
Reichsmarks to the £


1937–12.32
Reichsmarks to the £


1938–12.18
Reichsmarks to the £

WORLD TRADE.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider calling at an early date a conference of business

Czecho-Slovakia, 1936–124.96
koruné to the£.


1937–141.89
koruné to the£.


Jan.-Aug.



1938–142.74
koruné to the£.

men from the chief commercial nations to consider the best means to stumulate world trade, and so help to improve international relations?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): International contacts between business men already take place frequently under various auspices with results of undoubted value in the direction of improving international relations. In the circumstances I do not consider that His Majesty's Government could usefully intervene with a view to the summoning of a special conference.

IMPORTED GOODS (MARKING).

Colonel Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now prepared to make an Order that goods from abroad shall be marked with the specific country of origin, and not merely marked foreign?

Mr. Stanley: I have no powers to make the Order which my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, but I have at present under consideration representations for an amendment of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, which authorises the use of the mark "foreign."

SUBSIDISED COMPETITION (GERMANY).

Mr. Parker: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the growing volume of subsidised German imports into this country, he will consider the imposition, by legislation, of special anti-dumping duties on the lines of those imposed by the American Government?

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider following the American lead and levying a special 25 per cent. ad valorem tax on goods coming to this country of German manufacture?

Mr. Stanley: I have no power to impose such duties. The subject of subsidised competition in the United Kingdom market has been considered on a number of occasions and I see no reason to differ from the conclusion reached that our existing tariff system is adequate to deal with competition of this kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

CREWS ACCOMMODATION.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the high incidence of tuberculosis among seamen, as revealed in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Anti-Tuberculosis

Service in Wales and the view expressed therein that this high rate is due to the unsatisfactory accommodation of seamen on ship and on shore; and what steps he is taking to deal with this problem?

Mr. Stanley: I have seen the paragraph in the report which I believe the hon. Member has in mind. The views expressed in it take into account other factors in addition to accommodation on board ship, and are based on statistics for the years 1924 to 1935. All aspects of crew accommodation were reviewed in 1937 by the Board of Trade in consultation with the other interests concerned, and as a result new Crew Space Instructions were issued by the Board. The condition of the accommodation for seamen on shore is a matter for the local authority concerned, and questions in regard to this should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, unless they arise in connection with a seaman's lodging house which has been approved under by-laws confirmed by the Board of Trade under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Medical Officer of Health for Cardiff, who gave this evidence, was convinced that this disease was largely due to the accommodation in ships, and will he call for a special report and make a special investigation?

Mr. Stanley: Hon. Gentlemen are aware that a great deal has been done in recent years with regard to accommodation, and a satisfactory standard has been laid down for all new ships. With regard to the question of an inquiry, a special inquiry was carried out in 1929 by the Ministry of Health and the Board of Trade. The result was to confirm the fact that tuberculosis is not particularly prevalent among seamen.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to the cases where the crew's accommodation is in such a position that ventilation is impossible owing to the crew having to sleep below water level?

PROVISIONAL REGISTRY CERTIFICATES.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of ships that have been granted provisional certificates of British registry by His Majesty's consuls abroad for the 12 months ended the last convenient date?

Mr. Stanley: Seventy-five ships were granted provisional certificates of British registry during the 12 months ended 28th February last.

Mr. Day: How many shipowners have applied for registration of ships that did not comply with the ordinary requirements?

Mr. Stanley: I am afraid I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

MAN-POWER.

Mr. Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, with a view to giving a measure of military training upon a voluntary basis to a substantial proportion of the population, and having regard to the fact that Territorial Army units all over the country have waiting lists of intending recruits, he will recommend that the establishment of the Territorial Army be increased to 2,000,000 men?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The suggestion envisages an increase in establishment to over eight times the present establishment of the Territorial Army, and would involve an enormous increase in the permanent staff, in training equipment and in building drill halls. His Majesty's Government have certain proposals under examination.

Mr. Medlicott: Having regard to the uncertainty of the strategic requirements of the immediate future will my right hon. Friend give consideration to the question as to whether some such substantial increase is necessary, if only on the ground that there is safety in numbers.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir, I have said that I will consider this matter.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Does my right hon. Friend realise that training for the Army is very different now from what it was before, and is more intensive, and that in peace time these reserves will not be able to train properly?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I quite agree with the first part of the question of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of recent events, he will consider increasing the number of divisions in the Regular Army?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: His Majesty's Government have the question of manpower under review.

Sir A. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend not realise that until our Army has been placed upon an adequate footing the attractions of an anti-aggression pact are very small to all those small peace-loving Powers about which we hear so much?

Mr. Lipson: When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to inform the House of the result?

Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for War the present strength of the Regular Army, the Territorial Army, less anti-aircraft units, and the reserves available for the Regular and Territorial Armies, respectively?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Total strengths of the Regular and Territorial


Armies and Reserves.


(i) On 1st March, 1939.


Regular Army
204,287


Regular Army Reserve
139,312


Supplementary Reserve
35,037


Territorial Army (less anti-aircraft units)
137,201


(ii) On 1st January, 1939 (latest, available figures).


Regular Army Reserve of Officers
9,340


Territorial Army Reserve of Officers
6,829

Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, should circumstances arise necessitating the throwing in at once of all the 500,000-odd men we can mobilise, there will be no reserve to fill the gaps that will immediately occur; and what steps are being taken to provide for that eventuality?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is a little difficult to deal with a matter such as that in reply to a question. I did deal with it at some length on the Army Estimates.

Sir Joseph Nall: Is it not a fact that there is no reserve for the 12 Territorial divisions of the field army which were announced recently, and will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity of informing the House how those divisions are to be reinforced?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I did deal with that matter in my speech on the Army Estimates, but the proposals which I then made were not, of course, final.

Sir A. Knox: When will the right hon. Gentleman's new scheme be ready?

PYJAMAS.

Mr. Eckersley: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that certain units of the Army serving abroad have been issued with pyjamas of Japanese manufacture; and will he take immediate steps to see that in future only articles of British manufacture are issued to all British troops?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Pyjamas for troops at all stations abroad, other than the Sudan, are made of British materials. With regard to the last part of the question, it is the practice to supply articles of British manufacture whenever available and suitable, unless the difference in price is found to be excessive, and I will look again into the provision of sleeping suits in the Sudan.

Mr. Eckersley: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer, I would ask whether he realises that the supply of pyjamas in the Sudan has given rise to great concern, especially in the north-west, and that the present position will not help recruiting?

Mr. Hannah: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these Japanese pyjamas are of very inferior quality?

ENLISTMENT (FOREIGN NATIONALS).

Mr. Fleming: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider applications from Czech soldiers to be permitted to join units of the British Army?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is not the policy to enlist foreign nationals into units of the British Army.

Mr. Fleming: Arising out of that answer, which I could scarcely hear, may I ask whether it is a fact that several Czech soldiers have actually made application for permission to join the British Army and whether, if that be so, my right hon. Friend will consider the question of granting to these would-be recruits —good material—something like temporary nationalisation so that they can join up?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I was not aware that several of them had made application, but they will be considered on their merits.

Mr. Mander: Has not the Secretary of State received a definite offer from a group of Czech officers placing their services at the disposal of the British Government and the British Army, and will he not consider those offers sympathetically?

Mr. McGovern: Has the right hon. Gentleman appealed to all the capitalists and bankers of the country and their sons to join the Army, and is there a shortage of them? After they go, the workers can be considered.

Mr. Leach: Were those offers received from the Czechs since the Government sold Czecho-Slovakia?

TROOPS, PALESTINE (PAY AND ALLOWANCES).

Mr. Mabane: asked the Secretary of State for War why the troops in Palestine are on a peace footing in the matter of pay, clothing, and allowances; whether he is aware that this is the cause of considerable discontent; and whether he will consider altering conditions to remedy this grievance?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not follow the implication in the question. Rates of pay are the same in peace and war, and the allowances in issue are appropriate to the circumstances in Palestine and would not necessarily be varied, either as to rates or conditions of issue, if the troops were placed on other than a peace footing. Compensation has been allowed in respect of abnormal wear and tear of clothing.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of factories, by counties, which, under his scheme of self-defence, have undertaken to provide from their own personnel a certain amount of anti-aircraft defence; whether he is satisfied with the response in each county; and whether there still remain any important industrial centres of any size which are undefended by any such factory armaments or by Air Ministry plans?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I cannot, in the public interest, disclose the particulars


asked for, but the response is satisfactory. The general scheme of our air defences as a whole affords a large measure of protection to all vulnerable points.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

ARRESTED MAN'S DEATH, BO'NESS.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he now is in a position to make a statement regarding the) findings of the jury at the Linlithgow Sheriff Court on 28th February, anent the death of William Gilmour Girvan; and to say what action he is taking on the jury's recommendations?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I am informed that the relatives of the deceased man have made a claim for damages against the West Lothian County Council, the chief constable and one of the constables in the West Lothian police force. I regret that I am unable to make a statement pending the disposal of this claim.

Mr. Mathers: Was not the last recommendation of the jury one which called for a general order with regard to leaving prisoners in the position of the man who died, and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the position calls for a general order to all prisons?

Mr. Colville: I am considering whether my Department can take any action in the matter, but I cannot make a full statement on the case itself at the present time.

Mr. Mathers: I can quite understand that.

CENTRAL POLICE STATION, GLASGOW.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is prepared to put an end to the housing of untried prisoners, detectives, and police in the same building at the Central Police Station, Glasgow; and whether he is aware that frequent protests have been made against the police having access to the untried prisoners, some of whom are boys, and advising them to plead guilty to offences, on the promise of being liberated as first offenders on probation, and to be detained in custody if they plead not guilty?

Mr. Colville: As the hon. Member is aware, the Criminal Investigation Depart-

ment is situated in part of the Glasgow central police office, and the cells are in another part of the building and under the control of another branch of the force. The cells are used only for persons aged 17 or over, and, under Statute, persons detained in them must, wherever practicable, be brought before the court not later than the day following arrest. I am not aware of any protests of the nature referred to in the last part of the question, and I am informed that the chief constable has no knowledge of any such protests or cases. In the circumstances, I do not think it is necessary to alter the present system.

Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in a recent High Court case, detectives admitted in the witness box when I was present that they had taken one prisoner from the cells on three occasions and had asked him to make a certain statement without an agent being present, and that numerous such cases have come to my attention; and does he not agree that it is a scandal that these men should be housed in the same building, as the Criminal Investigation Department can go to them at: any time of the night in order to take them from their cells and examine them?

Mr. Colville: If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of that kind I shall be glad if he will give it to me, but I have not had any such protests.

Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I myself was taken from the cells in the middle of the night in the same way?

OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of public assistance given to old age pensioners in the Greenock area during 1937 and 1938, respectively; and what is the present number of such old age pensioners?

Mr. Colville: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not at present available. With regard to the second part, Greenock Town Council inform me that the number of old age pensioners who received public assistance during the week ended nth March, 1939, was 749.

Mr. Gibson: Is not this a very high proportion in relation to the population, and does not the expenditure on this matter weigh very heavy on the municipality; and will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking the necessary steps to spread the burden over the whole country?

Mr. Colville: The hon. and learned Gentleman is now raising a much larger question.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give some real consideration to this question, in view of the- demand that has been made in all parts of the country for justice in this matter?

MILK-IN-SCHOOLS SCHEME.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the location of the 50 schools visited by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board's propaganda officers during February; how many schools in Greenock have been so visited during the last year; and what arrangements for visits there and elsewhere in Scotland have been made for the current year?

Mr. Colville: I regret that I am unable to give the information which the hon. and learned Member desires.

ISLE OF BARRA (EROSION).

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his proposals for dealing with the problem of destruction of land in the Isle of Barra by sandblow this year?

Mr. Colville: The Department of Agriculture for Scotland have the position in the Island of Barra under observation, but remedial measures such as have already been taken in Vatersay cannot, for technical reasons, be effectively undertaken in Barra at present.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very good agricultural land there, and that the roads, on which so much money has been spent, are being spoiled and obstructed by this sand? Surely there is justification for spending a little extra money in order to save the facilities on which money has already been spent?

Mr. Colville: The difficulty is a technical one, due to the contour of the land. I shall be glad to see the hon. Member about it.

ISLE OF LEWIS (ROAD SCHEME).

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations have been received since 1930 from the Ross and Cromarty County Council regarding the construction of a road linking Ness district and North Tolsta, Isle of Lewis; and whether he will make a statement?

Mr. Colville: Representations on this subject were made by the county council of Ross and Cromarty in 1931 and 1935. After careful consideration, however, the Departments concerned reached the conclusion that the benefits likely to result from the construction of the road would not justify the expenditure involved.

Mr. MacMillan: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that opening up this road would not only prove a great convenience for tourists coming to the island, but would also open up some of the best agricultural land in the island, where the soil is largely virgin soil?

Mr. Colville: My information does not agree with that of the hon. Member regarding the nature of the land in that part of the island.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my information is based on a geological survey made by a professor of Edinburgh University?

Mr. Colville: It does not agree with the information I have, which is to the effect that this particular project would not be justified.

LOBSTER INDUSTRY, WESTERN ISLES.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider offering financial assistance for lobster ponds in the Western Isles; and what other proposals he has to assist this industry, especially with regard to transport and marketing?

Mr. Colville: As the hon. Member is aware, certain recommendations on the subject of lobster fishing, including the continuance of research into the technical difficulties of ponding lobsters, have been made by the Sub-Committee of the Scottish Economic Committee on the Highlands and Islands, and these are at present receiving consideration. In the meantime, the Fishery Board's pamphlet giving guidance as to the best methods of packing lobsters is being revised.

Mr. MacMillan: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider those cases where a relatively small amount of assistance would help to settle the problem?

Mr. Colville: I am anxious that we should find the best way of assisting the lobster industry.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility that the abolition of the capitalist class would diminish the demand for lobsters?

DEBT COLLECTOR'S ARREST, GLASGOW.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Lord Advocate the name and address of the debt collector in the East End of Glasgow who has been arrested; the nature of the charge against him; whether he has been liberated on bail; the amount of bail; and the date of his trial?

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): James Turkington, carrying on business as a debt collector at 1086, Gallowgate, Glasgow, was arrested on 4th instant on charges of subornation of perjury, perjury, and fraud, and was subsequently liberated on £100 bail. The date of the trial has not yet been fixed.

Mr. McGovern: Is it the case that when this man was arrested a large number of people were there and cheered the arrest; and can the Lord Advocate give the reasons for the cheering?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MECO CHOCK SYSTEM.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the introduction of the Meco chock system on the conveyor faces at Calder Collieries, Hargreaves, Limited, Burnley, and that when they are with drawn sparking takes place, and the work men are of opinion that if firedamp is present the sparking will ignite it; and will he have an inspection made of the Meco chock to find out whether it is a danger to mining?

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household (Mr. Grimston): I have been asked to reply. I am informed that the Meco chock release device is in use on conveyor faces at Calder Colliery and at a number of other collieries throughout the country, and that frictional sparking sometimes results when the chocks are being with-

drawn. The question whether such sparking is capable of igniting firedamp has recently been investigated by the Safety in Mines Research Board, and under the conditions of the experiments so far conducted—which have been very severe—no ignition has occurred.

Mr. Tinker: Do I understand that this system has been investigated?

Mr. Grimston: It has been investigated.

Mr. Tinker: If that is so, could an experiment be carried out with the miners' representative present, to see what is the effect?

Mr. Grimston: I will convey that request to my right hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. T. Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman say what percentage of gas was used in the experiment?

Mr. Grimston: Not without notice.

HYDRO-MECHANISATION.

Mr. Day (for Mr. David Adams): asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that there is in operation in the Donbas Coalfield, Russia, a coalmine in which all the processes of coal production are carried out by hydraulic methods; and if, as it is claimed, that hydro-mechanisation will considerably expedite the work of coal winning and lessen costs, he will make inquiries into this process?

Mr. Grimston: Yes, Sir. I understand that experiments are being made on these lines at one pit, but they appear to be in a very early stage.

Mr. Day: Can we be assured that further inquiries will be made?

Mr. Grimston: Yes, Sir.

COMMITTEES OF INVESTIGATION.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Secretary for Mines how many cases referred to the Committees of Investigation have been decided in favour of the consumer; how many against; and what has been the result on appeal?

Mr. Grimston: Since the Coal Mines Act, 1930, has been in force, 12 complaints have been decided by committees of investigation in favour of the consumer; in two of these cases there were appeals to arbitration and the decision of the committee was not upheld. In 34 cases of complaints by consumers, the decision


of the committee was against the complainant; in one case there has been an appeal to the Central Appeal Tribunal and in that case the decision of the committee was upheld.

PRICES.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction amongst the trawler-owners and certain industrial concerns as to the rise in the price of coal in the last few years; and what action he intends to take to obviate the present difficulty in getting the committees set up to obtain redress for the consumers?

Mr. Grimston: I am aware that some trawler owners and industrial consumers are dissatisfied with the present level of coal prices; although I would point out that as a result of consultations between representatives of the trawler owners and colliery owners adjustments were made this year in the prices of trawler bunkers. With regard to the last part of the question, committees of investigation have been in existence for eight years and it will be remembered that the constitution and powers of these committees were strengthened by the Coal Act, 1938; there is no difficulty in obtaining redress for consumers when the committees are satisfied that complaints are substantiated.

SILICOSIS AND TUBERCULOSIS (SLATE QUARRYMEN, NORTH WALES).

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the reference to the incidence of silicosis and tuberculosis among the slate quarrymen in North Wales in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Anti-Tuberculosis Service in Wales; and whether he can make a statement indicating what steps are being taken to deal with the problem?

Mr. Grimston: I have been asked to reply. As was stated by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Home Department in reply to the hon. Member on 15th December last, an expert medical inquiry has revealed no evidence of silicosis among slate workers in open quarries. My right hon. and gallant Friend informs me that about a year ago his attention was called by the chairman of the committee to statements which had been made

about. conditions in the slate mines. Special investigations were at once undertaken, and as a result considerable improvements in the methods of dust suppression have been effected. The matter continues to have the close attention of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister whether an interim report will be issued on the Royal Commission oh Workmen's Compensation, in view of the public demand for such a report; and when the Royal Commission is likely to complete its duties and be able to issue a full report to His Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Member will appreciate, the Royal Commission, who are well aware of the urgency of their task and are prosecuting it with all speed, must deal with a very great mass of evidence, written and oral, before they can reach their conclusions. The date of the presentation of the final report and the question of issuing any interim report can with confidence be left to the discretion of the Commission.

Mr. Sorensen: Having regard to the present unjust position, would not the Prime Minister make some representation to the Commission with a view to expediting their report?

The Prime Minister: I have already conveyed to the Commission the substance of the question which has been addressed to me, and of my answer.

Sir Arnold Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Trades Union Congress, who had eight months' notice of this inquiry, have not yet submitted their evidence?

Mr. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any request has been made to the Royal Commission to consider different aspects of the question separately, so that they might be enabled to make interim reports on the more urgent ones?

The Prime Minister: I cannot say.

EUROPEAN SITUATION.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister why a statement was made to the Press on 9th March on behalf of the Government to the effect that the international situation seemed to give less cause for anxiety than for some time past, that the Government were inclined to be optimistic, and that an arms limitation conference seemed to be within the bounds of practical politics before the end of the year?

The Prime Minister: Conversations with representatives of the Press take place from time to time at their request on matters affecting various Departments, and this practice was followed on the occasion referred to. It is left entirely to the Press themselves to make use of such conversations in their own way.

Mr. Dalton: Was the statement drafted at No. 10, Downing Street or at the Foreign Office?

The Prime Minister: No statement was drafted at all.

Mr. Dalton: Was the statement made devised at No. 10, Downing Street without consultation with the Foreign Office?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member can rest assured that there is complete harmony of view between the Foreign Office and No. 10, Downing Street.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that the German Army started to march three days after this declaration, can the Prime Minister explain how it was that such an extremely ill-informed statement came to be made?

The Prime Minister: I do not imagine that the German Army was in contact with the Press of this country.

Mr. Mander: Do the Government know anything?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Prime Minister assure us that the Foreign Office was consulted before this statement was made to the Press?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; I am not prepared to give information as to what goes on between one Department and another.

Mr. Mander: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give

notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with regard to the European situation?

The Prime Minister: I need not repeat the statement which I made last Thursday on behalf of His Majesty's Government, but I can inform the House that His Majesty's Government are actively continuing their consultations with other Governments upon the issues arising from recent events. During the progress of these consultations, the House will appreciate that it is essential that their confidential character should be respected, and hon. Members will not, I trust, press me to make statements which could not in any case be complete, until we are in possession of the final views of the other Governments concerned.

Mr. Greenwood: While one realises the difficulties of complete disclosure at this stage, in view of the general uneasiness which I think there is in this country and in the House, would it be possible, for the enlightenment of the public here and the public abroad and of certain other Powers, for the right hon. Gentleman to go just a little bit further to remove the apprehensions that there are in the minds of Members in all parts of the House, as to whether the Declaration which has been submitted to certain Powers is one merely for consultation, or whether it is one which is a policy of mutual aid which might involve military commitments? If the House could have some guidance on that matter it might feel more at rest than it is at this time.

The Prime Minister: I quite appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's desire to have as much information as possible, and particularly to remove what he, I think, rightly describes as misapprehensions. He will appreciate, on the other hand, that it is extremely difficult and delicate to throw all the cards on the table while the game is not yet complete. It will, at any rate, be readily understood, from what I have said previously, that what the Government have in mind goes a great deal further than consultation. I do not think I should like to go any further into details at this moment.

Mr. Dalton: May I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that


what the Government have in mind goes further than consultation? Have the Government made clear the contents of their minds to those foreign Powers with whom they have communicated, and particularly has it been made clear to Poland that His Majesty's Government would be willing, in conjunction with other great Powers, to come to Poland's assistance if she is to be the next victim of German aggression?

The Prime Minister: I think I must still maintain a certain reserve on this matter. I will say this, that the Government have made perfectly clear to the other Governments with whom they are in consultation what His Majesty's Government are prepared to do in certain circumstances.

Sir P. Harris: While recognising the very delicate negotiations that are going on, can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking at the earliest possible moment to arrange for a discussion, when he is in a position to make a full statement?

The Prime Minister: I realise that the House is entitled to have information at the earliest possible moment when that information can be given to it. It is obviously impossible for me to name a date just now. It is likely that before the Easter recess the House will desire to have a discussion in any case. Certainly if we are in a position usefully to contribute to a discussion before then, I shall take steps to see that such discussion takes place.

Mr. Greenwood: May I assume that the right hon. Gentleman will take every possible step to speed up the negotiations that are taking place, and may I assume quite definitely that perhaps at a very early date the House will want a discussion of the position?

The Prime Minister: I appreciate that, but I would like to assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House generally that the Government fully realise the urgency of this matter and the desirability of coming to a conclusion at the earliest possible moment. At the same time it will be realised that there is more than one Government involved, and that the issue is not solely in the hands of His Majesty's Government.

MEMELLANDERS (PROPERTY, GREAT BRITAIN).

Mr. Mander: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any action has been taken by the Government, in conjunction with the banks, concerning the property of Memellanders in Great Britain?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): No, Sir.

Mr. Mander: Does not the Chancellor think that similar conditions exist in Memelland as in Czecho-Slovakia?

Sir J. Simon: No, Sir. My information is that Memelland liabilities here are too small to justify a special Act of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

DISTRESSED AREAS.

Mr. Foot: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the Government intend to introduce their proposed legislation to make loan facilities more readily available for new undertakings in areas which are suffering from heavy unemployment but which are not scheduled as Special Areas under the Special Areas Acts?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply given on this subject to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on 16th March.

Mr. Foot: Is it not a fact that the Government announced their intention to take action of this kind as long ago as November last? When are the Government going to give this information to the House?

Captain Wallace: I have already said that I cannot give any information on the subject, and I cannot add to the answer.

TEAM VALLEY TRADING ESTATE.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour the amount of coal that has been purchased by the estate company under the Team Valley Trading Estate, and the price paid per ton; or whether the coal is to be worked by the coalowners and the estate company left without any right to support?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): As regards the first two parts of the question, I am informed that the transaction between the North Eastern Trading Estate Company and the previous owners was not specifically divided between land and coal. At the south end of the estate the agreement made by the Trading Estate Company for the purchase of the surface carried with it the immediate right of support to a central strip of sufficient width to enable the company to proceed with development of the estate. This agreement also embodied arrangements for organising the winning of coal under the areas on each side of the central strip in such a way as to allow the estate to be developed over these areas at the appropriate time. As regards the north end, I understand an action in the High Court is pending. The hon. Member will not, therefore, expect a statement from me.

Mr. Stewart: Is the House to understand that the Government have allowed factories to be built costing thousands of pounds without a guarantee against being let down?

Mr. Brown: My answer covers that point, as the hon. Member will see.

Mr. Stewart: Does not the latter part of the answer suggest that they have not the necessary guarantees?

ROYAL AIR FORCE AND FOOD DEFENCE DOCUMENTS (LOSS).

Mr. Mainwaring: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the two instances lately in which official documents have been stolen, the one involving the Air Force and the other food defence plans; whether an inquiry has been made into the circumstances; and what action is to be taken against the persons held responsible for the loss?

Captain Wallace: I have made inquiries into the two cases mentioned. As regards the Royal Air Force documents, a Service court of inquiry has been held, and its report is under consideration by the Air Council. In the case connected with the Food (Defence Plans) Department, the stolen documents belonged to a trade representative on a Departmental Advisory Committee. No secret information was contained in these documents,

and I understand that no further action is proposed.

Mr. Mainwaring: Are we to assume that in both cases the documents have not been recovered?

Captain Wallace: That is the case.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: Is there no penalty for people who lose documents in this careless way?

Captain Wallace: It depends on the circumstances.

Sir J. Nall: Is it not the fact that in the case of the Services very exhaustive inquiries are made and sometimes a court-martial results? Why is it that similar procedure is not followed in the case of the Civil Service?

Captain Wallace: In this case of the Food (Defence Plans) Department, no secret information was lost, and the only action that could be taken would be to remove this gentleman from the Advisory Committee. That would be inconvenient for the Board of Trade. It would be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Sir J. Nall: Is it convenient to retain the services of people who lose papers?

Captain Wallace: It may be, and it may not. The papers contained no information of any value.

Sir A. Knox: Is the Civil Service not becoming as bad as the War Cabinet during the War?

IRELAND (PARTITION).

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the offers made by representatives of the Irish Free State to the Government of Northern Ireland to meet them in conference, with a view to ending partition and securing a united Ireland; and whether he will call such a conference and use his influence to end this division in Ireland?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Sir Thomas Inskip): My attention has been called to the suggestion for a conference between Eire and Northern Ireland which was put forward in the course of a debate in the Senate of Eire last month. I do not feel that the action


indicated by the hon. Member in the second part of his question is likely to be useful.

Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the overwhelming majority of the people are in favour of this course; and is this small minority in Northern Ireland to be allowed to dominate the great majority in that country? Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the Northern Ireland Parliament, or its Government, are still considering the use of German arms if any attempt is made to effect that change?

Sir T. Inskip: The hon. Member's question is so remotely connected with the original question that I cannot attempt to reply.

Mr. McGovern: I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the overwhelming majority of the people were in favour of this course, and whether the minority were to be allowed to dominate the majority?

Sir T. Inskip: The Prime Minister made a statement this year that this was a matter for Northern Ireland and Eire, and to that I cannot add anything.

SOUTH AFRICA (HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether consultation with the Government of the Union of South Africa and High Commissioners' Territories is producing satisfactory social and economic results; and whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to proceed from these consultations to the transfer of any of the Protectorates?

Sir T. Inskip: I assume that the first part of the hon. Member's question refers to the Joint Advisory Conference, which consists of representatives of the Union Government and of the Administrations of the Territories and whose function is to study openings for co-operation in matters affecting the development of the Territories. In November last, the members of the conference made a tour of investigation in the Bechuanaland Protectorate and Swaziland and hope to visit Basutoland later. I understand that they are considering certain proposals for co-

operation in regard to the two Territories which they have visited. As regards the second part of the question, the policy of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom remains as set out in the Aide Mémoire of 1935 (Cmd. 4948) and in the joint statement made by General Hertzog and my predecessor on 29th March, 1938.

Mr. Creech Jones: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Union Government have yet submitted for the consideration of the Africans themselves the conditions under which transfer might be effected and the conditions which would operate in these Territories in the event of transfer?

Sir T. Inskip: There is nothing I can add to the statement to which I have referred, which was made by General Hertzog and my predecessor.

Mr. Riley: Will the recommendations of the conference be reported to this House?

Sir T. Inskip: I am not able to answer that question at present. So far as I know, the report has not yet been completed.

Mr. Paling: Has the opinion of the people concerned been obtained, and what do they think about it?

Sir T. Inskip: That is another question. If the hon. Member desires the information, perhaps he will put a question down.

NEWFOUNDLAND.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether consideration is being given to any alteration in the present Government of Newfoundland, and whether he can now lay down the conditions which must be satisfied before the democratic constitution is restored?

Sir T. Inskip: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but, as I explained in reply to the question asked by the hon. Member on 14th February, the best methods for keeping in touch with public opinion in Newfoundland are constantly under review by the Commission of Government. As regards the second part of the question, the conditions are set out in the first Section and the first Schedule of the Newfoundland Act, 1933.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the very slow progress of economic recovery, are we to assume that the democratic constitution is not likely to be restored for a considerable time?

Sir T. Inskip: I am glad to recognise that the hon. Gentleman said that progress is being made, even if it is slow progress. When Newfoundland is self-supporting, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the position will be different.

Mr. T. Johnston: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the recent revelations by Press commissioners who have visited Newfoundland as to the appalling poverty which is being allowed under the existing regime; and are the Government prepared to take some steps to alter that?

Sir T. Inskip: I am aware that there are serious conditions in Newfoundland and that the Government have given, and are giving, a great deal of assistance in order to remedy them.

Mr. Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 70,000 citizens of this Empire are trying to live on 3d. a day; and what are the Government prepared to do?

Sir T. Inskip: If such a statement has been made in the Press, I am not prepared to accept it as an accurate statement.

Mr. McGovern: It was the "Daily Express"—a Government newspaper.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

DOMINIONS.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will give the House any information in his possession as to the manner in which His Majesty's Government in any of the Dominions propose to expand then-Defence Forces or increase expenditure thereon during the coming year?

Sir T. Inskip: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the answer, which contains a number of figures, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Day: Will the figures show the additional expenditure on naval and Air Force expansion?

Sir T. Inskip: No, Sir.

Mr. Day: May we have those figures separately?

Sir T. Inskip: If the hon. Member asks for them I will try to obtain them, but I am not sure that it is possible.

Following is the answer:

His Majesty's Government in Canada have provided in their Estimates for 1939–40 for an expenditure on national defence of $63,447,000, an increase of $27,480,000 on the estimated expenditure for 1938–39. His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia in April, 1938, decided upon a defence programme involving a total expenditure on defence of £44,000,000 in the three financial years 1938–39 to 1940–41, and in December last decided further to expand the programme to a total expenditure for the three years of £63,000,000. The present provision for the financial year 1938–39 is £18,100,000 as compared with £11,500,000 in 1937–38. The Prime Minister of the Commonwealth is reported recently to have announced that the three years' programme will be further expanded, and that Australia is now engaged on a defence programme costing £26,000,000 per annum. Details of the estimated expenditure on defence by His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa for the forthcoming year are not yet available, but considerable expenditure for the purpose of armaments was foreshadowed by the Union Minister of Finance in his Budget statement on 15th March, while the Union Minister of Defence is reported to have made a public statement on the expansion of the Union Defence Forces in the Union House of Assembly on 23rd March. I understand that the New Zealand Budget for 1939–40 will not be introduced for some months, but recent statements by New Zealand Ministers have foreshadowed increases in defence expenditure. The total estimated expenditure of His Majesty's Government in New Zealand in connection with defence for 1938–39 is about £2,900,000, as compared with £1,900,000 for 1937–38.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY (CONSULTATION).

4. Mr. Day (for Mr. David Adams): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now decided upon the consultative personnel to be drawn from the shipping industry for purposes of


National Defence and emergency, and from what sections of the industry they will be drawn?

Mr. Stanley: I do not rely on a fixed personnel for consultation in connection with National Defence and emergency plans which concern the shipping industry, but on any particular question I consult representatives of the section of the industry concerned with that question.

Mr. Day: Have any consultations taken place already?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir, on many occasions.

NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN RHODESIA.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can now make a statement respecting the future relationship of Southern and Northern Rhodesia; the estimated number of native population of adults and of children in Southern and Northern Rhodesia, respectively; and the number of punishments of natives by beating or whipping that were inflicted for the last available year?

Sir T. Inskip: As to the first part of the question, a statement in regard to the recent report of the Rhodesia-Nyasaland Royal Commission will be made shortly. As to the other two parts of the question, the only available population figures for Southern and Northern Rhodesia do not distinguish between native adults and children. The number of sentences of corporal punishment imposed upon natives in Southern Rhodesia in 1938 (including cases of punishment for prison offences) was 1,056. In Northern Rhodesia, the figure for 1937 was 292.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the figures regarding beatings in prison do not form a good advertisement for democratic government in that part of the Empire?

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. Poole: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the in justices which are being inflicted on many disabled ex-servicemen by the operation

of the Royal Warrant; and whether he will consider getting it so amended as will result in disabled ex-servicemen receiving pensions commensurate with the injuries they have received?

Mr. Furness (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. I am advised that the suggestion in the first part of the question is certainly not borne out by experience and that the existing authorities already adequately secure the object in view.

Mr. Poole: Is the Minister aware that many of these men are suffering serious hardship, and is he not prepared to do anything to prevent them from being thrown upon the mercy of public assistance authorities where many of them find themselves at the present time.

Mr. Furness: I can assure the hon. Member that the Minister fully investigates all the cases that are brought to his notice.

Mr. N. Maclean: Is it not the case that a very large number of ex-service men are, through their injuries, suffering a worsening of health and are being thrown upon the public assistance committees; and does he not think that it is time that this particular warrant should be re-examined in order to re-consider the cases of those who are presently on public assistance?

Mr. Furness: The hon. Member will appreciate that I cannot debate this matter, but clearly the Minister will keep a constant watch on these points.

Mr. Maclean: Has not the Minister been keeping a constant watch all the time?

Mr. Tinker: Will the hon. Gentleman convey the feeling of the House on this question to his hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and ask him to have it examined again?

Mr. Poole: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Poole: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. W. V. Dawkings, a disabled ex-service patient in Roehampton, was recently refused permission to go to the lavatory for four days in an attempt to break the


man's resistance to being discharged; on whose instructions was this done; and what action does he propose to take to avoid a repetition of such treatment?

Mr. Furness: Mr. Dawkings was, on completion of his treatment, transferred to a single-bedded side ward because he refused to leave the hospital, and made himself a disturbing influence in the general ward. He was provided with the facilities usually made for patients in these circumstances and, indeed, was allowed to go to the lavatory when he requested it. Mr. Dawkings, on leaving the hospital on the 21st instant, expressed his apologies for having caused trouble and his gratitude for the kindness shown him.

Mr. Poole: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Dawkings only left the hospital when he was accorded an interview at the Ministry of Pensions in order that he might state his case, and that the reply of the Minister is not borne out by the statement of Dawkings; and does he think that this is a satisfactory way of taking disciplinary action?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the hon. Member ask the Minister of Pensions to make a personal inquiry into this case, of which I have knowledge, and in which I know that the hardship has been very great to a man who has served the country very gallantly.

Mr. Furness: I will convey that request to my hon. Friend.

TELEPHONE KIOSKS (INSTRUC TIONS, WELSH LANGUAGE).

Major Owen: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in certain telephone kiosks in Victoria station, instructions for telephoning are printed in French as well as in English, and in others, in both German and English; and will he, therefore, make provision in telephone kiosks in rural Wales for the printing of the instructions in the Welsh language as well as in English?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): I am aware that in Victoria station certain of the call offices have instructions printed in either French or German as well as English. This is

an exceptional arrangement for obvious reasons. In order that these foreign instructions may be displayed it has been necessary to remove the list of call charges, but this does not inconvenience the public generally in London as most of the calls made are within the 2d. range. There are, in addition, call offices adjacent which have a list of charges. The conditions are not comparable with those in rural Wales where a wider range of calls has to be covered and where the list of call charges is much more necessary, and I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot see my way to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

Major Owen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, besides these notices in French and English or in German and English, there are notices also in those kiosks as to how to send letters by air mail, and how to obtain free calls, and that there is also a mirror; and will the hon. Gentleman explain why so much courtesy should be shown to the foreigner while a stupid —there is no other word for it—Post Office refuses to give these conveniences to Welsh-speaking people?

Sir W. Womersley: I am aware that we have mirrors in the kiosks in Victoria station, but they are a larger type of kiosk than those which are installed in the rural areas. There is no room for a mirror or for instructions in Welsh in the rural area kiosk. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave him some time ago, when I said that, after very careful consideration, and having regard to the small number of Welsh call office users who cannot read English, I think that any slight advantage which might be conferred by the introduction of Welsh translations on the notices would be more than offset by the disadvantage. I do not think that there is anything stupid in that.

Major Owen: Will the hon. Gentleman say on what occasion the Post Office has undertaken any investigation whatsoever as to whether the people who use these telephone kiosks are conversant with English or not? Is it not the fact that on every possible occasion his Department in particular have shown a complete contempt for all requests made by Welsh-speaking citizens of this country?

Mr. Macquisten: Is it not very unkind to provide a Welshman with a mirror?

Sir W. Womersley: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that I myself made a personal investigation into this matter and called for reports from all districts likely to furnish the right information, and I can only repeat that our investigations proved to us that there are so few people who do not read English that it was not worth while bothering with that matter.

Major Owen: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

SUGAR-BEET SUBSIDY (NORTHERN IRELAND).

Colonal T. Sinclair (for Viscount Castlereagh): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount, directly or indirectly, Northern Ireland has contributed to the sugar-beet subsidy during the last 15 years; and what amount of this subsidy have Northern Ireland farmers received?

Sir J. Simon: Northern Ireland has not contributed directly to the sugar-beet subsidy during the period in question; Northern Ireland farmers do not grow sugar-beet and have received no part of the subsidy. I know of no satisfactory basis for estimating what amount, if any, Northern Ireland can properly be said to have contributed indirectly to the subsidy.

TRAINING CENTRES (SOLDIERS AND AIRMEN).

Mr. T. Henderson: asked the Minister of Labour the number of Service men, of the three Services, who are at present undergoing vocational training, before being discharged from the Service, in training centres under his control?

Mr. E. Brown: On 16th March, 1939, there were 4,014 serving soldiers and seven

serving airmen in training in the Ministry's Government training in the Ministry's Government training centres.

Mr. Henderson: asked the Minister of Labour what vocations the Service men are being trained for in the training centres under his control, and the number for each vocation; and has he had any negotiations with the trades unions who may be concerned?

Mr. Brown: The numbers of serving soldiers and airmen in training for various industries on 16th March, 1939, were: engineering 2,516, building 901, furnishing and vehicle building 147, other trades 457. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

BILL PRESENTED.

BUILDING SOCIETIES (NO. 2) BILL,

"to declare and amend the law as to the making of advances by building societies, as to the security taken for advances made by such societies, as to the payment of commissions in connection with the business of such societies and as to the liability of persons concerned in the administration of such societies; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. Colville, Mr. Elliot, the Attorney-General, and Captain Wallace; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendment to the Cancer Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 132.

Division No. 71.]
AYES.
[4.11 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)


Albery, Sir Irving
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B knhead)
Beit, Sir A. L.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S,
Bernays, R. H.
Bull, B. B.


Andersen, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Bird, Sir R. B.
Bullock, Capt. M.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Blair, Sir R.
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Boulton, W. W.
Burton, Col. H. W.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Caine, G. R. Hall-


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Brass, Sir W.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Cartland, J. R. H.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Carver, Major W. H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Cary, R. A.




Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Rankin, Sir R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Channon, H.
Hulbert, N. J.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Christie, J. A.
Hunloke, H. P.
Remer, J. R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Hunter, T.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Colman, N. C. D.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge.)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Keeling, E. H.
Rowlands, C.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Salmon, Sir I.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Han. Sir G. L.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Salt, E. W.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Cross, R. H.
Lambert, Rt. Han. G.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Crossley, A. C.
Lancaster, Captain C. G.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Levy, T.
Selley, H. R.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lewis, O.
Shakespeare, G. H.


De Chair, S. S.
Liddall, W. S.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Da la Bère, R.
Lindsay, K. M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lipson, D. L.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Denville, Alfred
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf st)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lloyd, G. W.
Smith, Brace well (Dulwich)


Dodd, J. S.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Donner, P. W.
Lyons, A. M.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Drewe, C.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Duggan, H. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Dunglass, Lord
Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.
Storey, S.


Eastwood, J. F.
Macquisten, F. A.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Magnay, T.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Maitland, Sir Adam
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Emery, J. F.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Markham, S. F.
Sutcliffe, H.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Tasker, Sir R. t.


Errington, E.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd'., S.)


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Medlicott, F.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Fildes, Sir H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Fleming, E. L.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Titchfield. Marquess of


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Touche, G. C.


Furness, S. N.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Train, Sir J.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Glyn, Major Sir R. G C.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Goldie, N. B.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Turton, R. H.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.
Ward, Lieut-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Gretton, Co' Rt. Hon. J.
Munro, P.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Nall, Sir J.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Grimston, R. V.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Nicholson, Hon. H. G.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hammersley, S. S.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hannah, I. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's)
Patrick, C. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wise, A. R.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Peters, Dr. S. S
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Petherick, M.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hely-Hutehinson, M. R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Pilkington, R.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
York, C.


Hepworth, J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Porritt, R. W.



Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Power, Sir J. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —


Holdsworth, H.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Captain Waterhouse and Captain


Holmes, J. S.
Radford, E. A.
Dugdale.


Hopkinton, A.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar. S.)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Barnes, A. J.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Ammon, C. G.
Barr, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Banfield, J. W.
Batey, J.







Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Han. F. W.


Ballenger, F. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Poole, C. C.


Bean, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hicks, E. G.
Price, M. P.


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Ridley, G.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Riley, B.


Burke, W. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T,
Ritson, J.


Cape, T.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Chater, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Cluse, W. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Sanders, W. S.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kirkwood, D.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cooks, F. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sexton, T. M.


Collindridge, F.
Lawson, J. J.
Shinwell, E.


Cove, W. G.
Leach, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Simpson, F. B.


Dalton, H.
Lunn, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Macdonald, C. (Ince)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Less- (K'ly)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Day, H.
McGovern, J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dobbie, W.
MacLaren, A.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maclean, N.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Ede, J. C.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Thorne, W.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacNeill Welr, L.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tinker, J. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mander, G. le M.
Tomlinson, G.


Foot, D. M.
Marklew, E.
Viant, S. P.


Gallacher, W.
Marshall, F.
Walkden, A. G.


Gardner, B. W.
Mathers, G.
Walker, J.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maxton, J.
Watkins, F. C.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Messer, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Milner, Major J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Montague, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
White, H. Graham


Grenfell, O. R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Muff, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Owen, Major G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hardie, Agnes
Paling, W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Parker, J.



Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —




Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.


Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

HAIRDRESSERS (REGISTRATION).

Sir Robert Tasker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the registration of hairdressers and to regulate the practice of hairdressing; and for the purposes connected therewith.
This is a Bill which was introduced previously in another place, and I believe that such opposition as was then shown has been met, and that the opponents have been satisfied. The Bill does not involve any charge on public funds. It is. really a continuation of a Bill which was passed by the House giving certain powers to local authorities to see that rooms in which hairdressing is done are kept in hygienic conditions, but that Bill did not permit the local authorities to exercise any control over the men carrying on the craft. To-day, hairdressing is something more than mere shaving and haircutting. Hon. Members know that there have been great advances in the technique of hairdressing, and that we are no longer in the days of Dickens, when sweet Angelina was very flustered at the prospect of her fiancee coming along and finding her in paper crackers. To-day, the hairdressing profession is really a

highly skilled craft involving the use of electric current, machinery, poisons, chemicals and the like. It is not proposed under the Bill to exclude any practising hairdresser.
I submit that the Bill is one that connects two objects which cannot be separated one from the other, the benefit of the public, and the benefit of the hairdressers. It will safeguard all legitimate, qualified hairdressers, raise the standard of the craft, and lead to efficiency and skill; and that, in turn, will have a direct bearing on the health of the people. Observations that have been made upon hairdressing at the present time lead one to say that the hairdresser is much more skilled than the person envisaged in another place, where haircutting was described as an operation entailing the use of a pudding basin. I am not speaking for people who have to call into use a pudding basin to enable them to cut hair. I have in mind highly skilled men. It is desirable that they should be thoroughly and properly trained before they make use of chemicals and machinery which may lead to damage, the ill-effects of which are not immediately


manifest, and for which, when they are no longer concealed, it is impossible to assign blame to the unskilled person; and therefore, one cannot recover from the hairdresser. To show how necessary it is to safeguard the public, I would mention that during the last five years insurance premiums have increased by no less than 600 per cent. It is desirable that all abuses should be eliminated, and that there should be no hardship inflicted upon those who are now engaged in the occupation of barbering and hairdressing, a body of people often traduced and stigmatised. I submit that the Bill is one that is worthy of Parliamentary consideration, and few things would be more agreeable to me than to secure the permission of the House favourably to consider the petitions of those whose sentiments I have endeavoured to express to-day. The Bill is one which, I submit, will do real good to a very deserving section of our people.

Mr. Montague: I do not wish to oppose the Bill, but I want to ask the hon. Member one question. Does he recognise that all the arguments he has put forward in favour of the registration of hairdressers are exactly of the same nature as the arguments with which he opposed the registration of architects?

Sir R. Tasker: I am glad to have an opportunity of correcting the hon. Member. I did not oppose the registration of architects. I opposed the registration of architects where it was proposed to give all power to one body, which represented less than half of the members of the profession. Here we have a united trade.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Robert Tasker, Sir John Haslam, Mr. Leslie, Mr. Temple Morris, Mr. Magnay, Mr. Chorlton, Mr. Barr, Mr. Moreing, and Colonel Baldwin-Webb.

HAIRDRESSERS (REGISTRATION) BILL,

"to provide for the registration of hairdressers and to regulate the practice of hairdressing; and for the purposes connected therewith, "presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]

BILLS REPORTED.

ALL HALLOWS LOMBARD STREET BILL.

Reported, with an Amendment, from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

BRISTOL WATERWORKS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills (with report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

CHARITABLE COLLECTIONS (REGULATION) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday, 5th May, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 88.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the South Wales Transport Company Limited with respect to their Mumbles Pier undertaking; and for other purposes."[Mumbles Pier Bill [Lords].

MUMBLES PIER BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

4.30 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
History alone can record the infinite variety of human life as revealed in the innumerable details which really constitute our political affairs. Our British system of unemployment insurance provides many comments on the complexity of our industrial and social life. This fact has been illustrated many times in the last few years in the numerous extensions and improvements of unemployment insurance that I outlined to the House on 13th March, 1939. The Bill that we are now considering covers a number of important issues and some minor ones. It affects holidays, periods of suspension from work, continuity, benefit to adult dependants, excessive claims, schemes—and since it does not appear on the surface, I would point out that the particulars given here may have a bearing on the problem of wet time and the scheme now before me in the building industry—contributions to those receiving whole-time education, training courses, both with regard to juveniles between 16 and 18 years of age and to serving soldiers, and periodical hirings in agriculture. These are the principal issues covered by the Bill.
It is a varied, interesting, and important subject. The first subject which calls for attention is contained in the early Clauses of the Bill, which are designed to give effect to the recommendations of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee in their report of 7th October, 1938, on holidays and suspensions in relation to unemployment insurance. This follows the report of the Amulree Committee of May, 1938, on Holidays with Pay. The first major fact to be borne in mind is that the term "holiday" is not at present used in the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and all the practice with regard to holidays under the Acts, as regards many types of holiday, is now regulated by a number of decisions of the Umpire. The necessity

for legislative action is imperative, not merely because of the great variety of circumstances and their growth, as shown in the very long review in the committee's report on this question, but because of the rapid increase of holidays with pay.
It may interest the House to have a brief summary of the progress of this great movement. It was estimated that at the end of March, 1938, holidays with pay were in some form provided for 7,750,000 workpeople, and of these 4,750,000 were covered by arrangements with individual employers or were in occupations where the right to holidays with pay had been established by agreement, and 3,000,000 were covered by voluntary collective agreements. I now estimate that since March, 1938, the numbers in the second category have risen to 4,250,000 and that at present the number of workpeople covered by arrangements providing for holidays with pay is 9,000,000. That 9,000,000, as the House will at once see, will be increased not merely because of the rapid extension of voluntary agreements, but as a result of the Holidays with Pay Act, 1938. That Act covers trade boards and Agricultural Wages Committees and the Road Haulage Central Wages Board. The present position is that 22 trade boards have decided to issue notices of proposal providing for holidays with pay, and 10 of these have actually issued the notices; 14 boards have agreed in principle to the exercise of their powers and are now engaged in working out the details; one board has decided not to exercise its statutory powers, but I am glad to say that a voluntary scheme has been adopted by the trade concerned; seven boards have now got the matter under active consideration; and four boards have not yet taken any action.
With regard to the Agricultural Wages Committee, Members will find that operation there has been rather more rapid than some hon. Members believed it would be. As regards England and Wales, 16 committees have provided for holidays with pay during the present year, and the necessary Statutory Orders have been issued by the Agricultural Wages Boards, 15 committees have issued statutory notices of proposal, and 10 of the remaining 16 have the matter actively before them. In Scotland six committees have issued statutory notices of proposal. With regard to the Road Haulage Central


Wages Board, the House will understand that that has only just been set up and has not yet considered the matter. These facts will, I am sure, convince the House, in addition to the arguments in the report, which I need not repeat, of the necessity for action to clear the ground so that the situation may be made perfectly plain to all those who are considering extensions of holidays with pay. The Committee recommended unanimously that holidays should be treated as an incident of employment and that unemployment insurance should be confined to unemployment. That is the clear distinction they drew, and the Bill draws that distinction quite clearly, as between holidays and unemployment.

Mr. Buchanan: Where does the Bill draw that distinction?

Mr. Brown: It draws the distinction in Clause I, where, in Sub-section (1), it states:
An uninsured contributor shall not be deemed to be unemployed for the purposes of the principal Act on any day on which he is on holiday.
That is where it is drawn, and' unemployment insurance is confined to unemployment. But the committee reported that since the details are complex and difficult to foresee, any Bill dealing with the subject should provide for powers to make regulations as and when necessary, and the Bill in Clause i, follows that course and provides the necessary powers. The Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee put the problem curtly and said in their report, on page 15, in paragraph 32:
The application of the principle to the infinitely varying conditions of industrial life involves questions of detail for which some flexibility of procedure is required. Legislation on the subject referred to us—and some legislation is obviously needed—should take the form of laying down the general principle that holidays are not unemployment, while leaving details to be worked out in regulations, to be made by the ordinary procedure, involving report by ourselves after receipt of representations from employers and workpeople.
That is the scheme which the Bill follows. It is clear that as holidays which now count for continuity of employment are in future not to count, there ought to be a review of the rules which govern the requirement of a fresh waiting period after the spell of unemployment. The

Bill makes provision by way of increasing the number of weeks interval.

Mr. Dingle Foot: What safeguards, if any, are there in the Bill for laying the regulations before the House?

Mr. Brown: This is the normal procedure under the law of 1934, and that, of course, applies as now.

Mr. Lawson: May I take it from the right hon. Gentleman that these regulations are to be made under the 1934 Act and will be submitted to the consideration of this House when they are ready?

Mr. Buchanan: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Memorandum to the Bill, he will see that it says that the saving to the Fund will be £400,000 a year. The Department know this, and they must have some idea in their mind as to the scheme that they are going to work, because they know the saving. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is in his mind as to the scheme that he intends to work in order to save the £400,000? Merely telling us that there will be regulations is not the scheme.

Mr. Brown: That, of course, involves re-arguing the whole case that was put before the committee, and I had hoped to save the House from that, but if the House desires it, I will make the position clear. The committee recommended that this procedure should be followed, because of the present state of affairs, which, is, as I said in my speech, that there is no law about holidays save the general law of unemployment, but that holidays come in through the decisions of the Umpire as to whether or not a holiday which is a holiday in fact may be a holiday in terms of his decisions. It is a matter of practice, and it is because of the varying circumstances that we desire to carry out the committee's recommendations in order to make the distinction in law quite clear. If the House will turn to page 8 of the report, they will find that there are three outstanding facts to which the committee refer.

Mr. T. Henderson: If at present an unemployed person in receipt of unemployment benefit and not receiving a holiday with pay goes on holiday with his family, under Clause 1 will it be impossible for him to receive unemployment payment as he is now allowed to do under the Act?

Mr. Brown: I was going to make that clear, but the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr Buchanan) desired more information, and I am always glad to give it. I will point out that there are three outstanding facts which must be taken into consideration, and which the committee had to take into consideration, in estimating what would be gained to the fund and, on the other hand, what would be the cost to the fund in doubling the continuity period from 10 weeks to 20 weeks. The first is that:
In the absence of statutory regulation or published agreement between the employer and the workmen, it takes some time for a period to become recognised as a customary holiday. We had brought to our attention a number of cases in which employers had regularly shut their works for several days at the same time every year, announcing it as a holiday, but not until this had been going on for five, or in some cases many more, years, had the Umpire held that the holiday had become established by custom.
There is the point, therefore, of the customary holiday. Secondly they point out that:
In so far as the incidence of holiday depends, not upon statute, but upon express agreement between employers and workmen, the evidence given to us makes it clear that the terms of agreement in many cases have either been drawn originally, or revised later, so as to reduce the period of formal holiday to a minimum, with a view to making it possible for workpeople to obtain benefit for as many days as possible which, in practice, were days of holidays.
Then the committee go on to give certain illustrations, which make it clear that this practice is not a practice which ought to be allowed under the unemployment insurance law. The third outstanding point is this:
The fact that people who are really on holiday can and do endeavour to treat this as a period of unemployment either for the serving or for the avoidance of, a waiting time, or for the obtaining of benefit, has itself brought about a relaxation of administrative regulations at holiday seasons.
It is those three facts, together with others, that the committee sum up in this paragraph on page 10, where they say:
The position revealed by our inquiries is in many ways unsatisfactory. It is not, we are sure, in accord either with the purposes for which unemployment insurance was established, or with responsible public opinion, that unemployment benefit, directly or indirectly, should become a form of holiday pay
In the last part of that paragraph, they sum up by saying:

The extent to which, under the present law, holiday leisure can be converted into unemployment for the purpose of insurance is already producing many anomalies and is bringing the insurance scheme into disrepute.
Those are the facts that I have in mind. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Gorbals for raising the point, because it enables me to call attention to the facts as they are produced in the report. Of course the regulations will be made in the light of the experience which is gathered and it is clear, since we are laying down the principle that holidays will be holidays and unemployment will be unemployment, that the regulations will be drawn in accordance with that principle. Since that principle is now being laid down in the law for the first time, no one can foresee precisely in what terms the regulations will need to be drawn until we have had consultations with those concerned. Just as the practice at the moment varies from industry to industry and from place to place, so the results of the new law will vary in their incidence.

Mr. Ellis Smith: What about the Anomalies Act?

Mr. Lawson: Will this be submitted to the House?

Mr. Brown: Of course the House will know the facts, but I want to add this. I was coming to the point about continuity. It is clear that this will have a great effect upon the waiting period and upon continuity.

Mr. George Griffiths: If a man is not getting holidays with pay and has to stop work at the pit—if he has no holiday pay whatever, because he has happened to be late on a few days during the 12 months, will it count as holidays with him?

Mr. Brown: I would not like to answer a question of that kind, but when the Bill passes, of course, a holiday will be a holiday whether it is paid for or not, and unemployment will be unemployment. On the information and evidence given at the inquiry the committee came to a double conclusion, first, that the saving to the fund by laying down a firm foundation for the holiday law would be £400,000 a year—which means that those who are now getting that amount under umpire law, would no longer get it under this law—but, on the other hand, since it is the proposition of the committee which is now in the Bill, that the interval for


the waiting period now 10 weeks shall be relaxed and made 20, that, of course, will mean a very heavy additional cost to the fund the estimate of which is £600,000. Therefore, on balance, the insured workers will have under the Bill an improvement of £200,000 in their payments from the fund. That is with regard to holidays with pay and continuity.
I have already said something about suspension and I need not detain the House long about that except to point out that when the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee was asked to consider holidays with pay, they were also asked to consider holidays in relation to unemployment insurance and the question of the payments made by certain firms to workers during suspension or after termination of employment. A number of firms or groups of firms carry out this practice. During temporary suspension from employment, or for a period after termination of employment —during which the worker can be seeking for work elsewhere—these firms make payments sometimes to an amount which, with benefit, would bring the weekly income up to the level of the full weekly wage. In other cases the amount varies but the general rule has been that where those payments can be said to form part of the terms and conditions of service, benefit was not paid. On that the Statutory Committee have this to say:
The question thus raised is one of considerable difficulty. On the one hand, it maybe argued that it is against sound policy to arrange that men when out of work shall get exactly the same as when in work, since this will discourage men from seeking work elsewhere and increase unemployment. On the other hand, unemployment benefit has never been regarded as necessarily a sufficient income during unemployment. It is contemplated that workmen shall be free to subscribe for additional benefit through trade unions and special arrangements are made with trade unions to encourage the provision of such benefit. Moreover Section 72 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, provides expressly for giving of supplementary benefit under schemes adopted for separate industries. On the whole, we believe that there is a case for amendment of the law in the direction of providing that supplementary payments during suspension made in accordance with regulations of the Minister of Labour should not be treated as wages so as to destroy a claim to benefit.
Clause 2 of the Bill carries out the recommendation which is the result of that: balanced view. Clause 4 provides further benefit in respect of adult depend-

ants. This is a point which has been raised many times by the hon. Member for Gorbals. I am glad to see him smile because he has said more than once that he was growing tired of making speeches on this subject, since apparently nobody listened to them and they had no effect. He will now see, however, that his words and those of other hon. Members who have raised this question—though I think he has done it oftener than anybody else —are listened to sometimes, and that effect is given to them, or at least to some of them. Clause 4 extends the provision of payment of dependants benefit to cover cases where the insured contributor has no dependent children but has residing with him and is maintaining a grown-up daughter or sister who runs the household. Under the present law, the insured contributor could not get dependant's benefit in respect of such a relative, and that has been regarded as not reasonable. I have looked into the matter in relation to the provisions of this Bill, and the Government have come to the conclusion that in such cases dependant's benefit should be payable in respect of the housekeeper who is running the contributor's house, much in the same way as the wife of a married contributor would be running her husband's house. I may add that we estimate that the annual cost to the fund will be about £100,000.
There is a further concession to the insured contributor in Clause 4. Under the existing law if the wife of an unemployed man has a lodger who lives as a member of the family and is provided with board and lodging, the fact that the wife is at work in looking after this lodger is no bar to dependant's benefit. There are, however, we have discovered cases in which only one lodger is taken and is given accommodation only and not board, and under the existing law, this is a bar to dependant's benefit in respect of the wife. It does not seem to me, and I do not think it will seem to the House, that this should be so, and the Clause makes the necessary Amendment. The next Clause which calls for comment is Clause 8 which makes certain Amendments as regards training courses. It has two main objects. First, it gives the Minister power to provide training courses for persons between the ages of 16 and 18 in special circumstances. I do not wish to pretend to the House that it will be possible to afford training to all between 16 and 18, but it


is clear that in certain cases it is desirable that training should be provided. There are, for instance, lads who have been at work from the age of 14 to 16 or 17 and who then lose their jobs. It would be a great advantage to some of them, especially if they lived in areas where there were not many opportunities for employment, if they could be given courses of training in the Government training centres.
We ask the House now to give us the power to offer training in suitable cases. I do not suppose that in the early stages, at any rate, it will be possible to offer training to many lads of 16 unless they are particularly apt for the purpose, but there are some big lusty lads of 16 and 17 who might welcome the opportunity which a Government training course provides, and it is for that reason that we now ask for the power given under this Clause. I ought to say that these lads in most places are now able to take advantage of the junior instruction centres. I wish to pay a tribute to the way in which the local education authorities have responded to their duties in that respect, and to the work done at the many admirable centres run by them for unemployed boys and girls. I also wish to acknowledge the work of the National Advisory Committees for Juvenile Unemployment, whose recommendations formed the basis of the scheme administered by the local education authorities. I would like to put it on record that in the week ended 25th January, 1939, the average number of unemployed juveniles in attendance at the various courses was 30,803 and the total number of individual juveniles who attended during that week was 38,227. It is as a result of the recommendations of the National Advisory Committees that the training in those centres is not at present vocational in character although some of it is practical. I am sure that the new opportunities made available under this Clause will be welcomed by certain young men who are juveniles only in the technical phraseology of the Ministry.

Mr. Viant: For what period of time is it intended to train these lads; and have the industries which are likely to be concerned been consulted?

Mr. Brown: The course is a six months' course of training in various crafts. It is

the normal Government training centre course. One or two things are kept in view but there have been no formal consultations, nor have there been any requests for formal consultations. There are difficulties in many ways. One is that in the case of the engineering trade there is no regular scheme. We have to run these centres with a view always to avoiding overloading the industry, and we regulate our inflow by what we know will be the probable intake in industry of semi-skilled labour. We do not pretend to train skilled men, and it is those courses which will be available for these juveniles.

Mr. E. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman said it was proposed to offer this training to youths between 16 and 18. Am I correct in understanding that no pressure will be brought to bear on them?

Mr. Brown: I was about to make that clear. The House must understand clearly that this scheme of training is and will remain voluntary in character. It is intended to meet the case of young people in areas where there is little or no prospect of employment. They come now to the Exchange and ask, "Why cannot we be allowed to go away when lads of 18½and 19 are allowed to go? "I again warn the House, however, that we cannot expect to do much in the earlier stages until we see how the scheme works, and we cannot deal with boys unless we are sure that they are lads of the type who would do well away from home.
I need not detain the House with the other part of Clause 8, because it is formal in character. The House has given its consent to the training of soldiers in Government training centres, and that is now being carried out with great success, but at the moment the Ministry of Labour do it merely as agents for the War Office. This Clause will regularise the position and place the responsibility on the Ministry of Labour so that hon. Members will be able to deal directly with the Minister of Labour on the Ministry Vote.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: Can the Minister say what is the percentage of placings of those who have received this training?

Mr. Brown: Yes, at the moment we are placing 78 out of every 100 who complete


their training course. The number of men who are taking advantage of it and the way in which they are being absorbed into industry are both very encouraging. Again I say we have regard all the time to the needs of industry. In centre after centre we alter our training courses in order to provide training in the particular industries for which we see there is a demand in the district. In south-east England, where there has been a great boom in private house building, one of our most active centres was that training semi-skilled men for the building industry. Recently, since private house building has slowed down, we have closed that centre. We do not intend to overload an industry, in the genuine interests of the craftsmen who have served their apprenticeship in it, and the prejudices which did exist, and naturally existed, in some quarters have slowly been giving way to an appreciation of our real aims, which are genuinely to provide opportunities for the unemployed to get jobs in industries in which men are needed. Sub-section (3) of this Clause is intended to remedy a minor anomaly. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the principal Act there is power to make payments to persons attending a training course if it is not a course provided only for persons who have not attained the age of 18 years. There is, however, no power to make such payments if the course is provided solely for juveniles, and since under our present practice juveniles are denned as those below 18 unless we make a new arrangement we shall not be able to provide pocket money for those under 18 attending a course provided solely for such juveniles.
The remainder of the Bill is, on the whole, concerned with what may be described as minor Amendments dealing with small points of detail, mainly of a technical character.

Mr. Gallacher: In Clause 10 why is it that a person required to attend an inquiry is not expected to go more than 10 miles from his place of residence without expenses? Why is it on a mileage basis? Cannot some other basis be found?

Mr. Brown: Up to the moment this has been the established practice, and it has worked very well, but I shall be willing to listen to any points to the contrary

which may be urged, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will deal further with the matter at the close of the Debate. Clause 5 amends an interpretation of the existing Acts which permits the receipt of benefits in certain cases for periods in excess of the periods mentioned in those Acts. Clause 6 provides for amendments as respects Schemes. There are at the moment two Special Schemes dealing with banking and insurance. Under the Act of 1920 arrangements were made for Special Schemes, but only two industries took advantage of them, banking and insurance. That power was afterwards taken away, so at the moment there are only those two Special Schemes and no other industry can be affected. In regard, however, to Supplementary Schemes the case for reform is urgent. There are at the moment no Supplementary Schemes, but provision is to be made so that there may be arrangements for payments to be made in respect of unemployment in addition to the payment of ordinary benefit or for periods for which ordinary benefit is not payable. On more than one occasion the possibility of making Supplementary Schemes has been discussed with certain industries. The flour milling industry has had discussions with my Department, and the National Joint Council for the Building Industry has submitted for my consideration a draft scheme for wet time. Since I am receiving objections to that scheme I must not be taken as expressing any opinion for or against it, but in the discussions both with the flour milling industry and the building industry we found that the present definition of the scope of a scheme caused difficulties, and there were other difficulties in terms of law, and in advance we are asking the House to remove those difficulties, so that if and when a decision is come to on a scheme the law may already provide for things being done which it is agreed are to be done.

Mr. Buchanan: You are not giving power to, say, the flour milling industry to start a Special Scheme?

Mr. Brown: No, these are Supplementary Schemes. There is no alteration as regards Special Schemes. What is happening under the building trades scheme, to which I am receiving objections, is that a plan has been worked out in the industry for payments for wet time.

Mr. Silverman: Does the Minister mean that there can be no similar schemes to the building trade scheme made in other industries?

Mr. Brown: No. There can be no schemes similar to the banking and insurance trades schemes, but there can be 100 supplementary schemes to suit the industries concerned. The building trade has special circumstances. This trouble of wet time has perplexed statesmen in politics and in the industry for half a century, and I am not making any pronouncement except to say that the law was not clear about any schemes and that is why I am looking ahead.
Clauses 9 and 10 bring the Unemployment Insurance Acts into line with the Health Insurance Acts in regard to legal proceedings for non-payment of contributions and evidence at statutory inquiries. The practice which has been found to work very well upon the health insurance side will be assimilated with our practice. We shall be glad to hear the views of hon. Members on this subject and to weigh them if evidence to the contrary is brought. Clause n makes more suitable provision for reciprocal arrangements with Northern Ireland in the matter of unemployment insurance, and Clauses 12 and 13 make certain adjustments and, in particular, bring into insurance canteen workers who are employed upon His Majesty's ships by the Army, Navy and Air Force Institutes.
There is only one more outstanding point, and that arises in Clause 15. This Clause gives effect to a recommendation made by the Statutory Committee in their latest report on the financial condition of the agricultural account of the Unemployment Insurance Fund at the end of last year. The Committee recommended that the existing provisions under which a rebate of unemployment insurance contributions can be obtained in respect of farm workers who enter into long hirings should be abolished. They pointed out that the administrative costs had been higher than the amount of the rebates. The administrative costs were £12,000 a year and the amount of the rebates £10,000. It was pointed out that the reasons for allowing this special concession have not been substantiated in practice. First it was said that agricultural insurance was an undue burden upon Scotland and

the North of England because the average rate of unemployment in those areas would be lower in view of the long-hiring system operating there, but that has not turned out to be the case. Page 18 of the report shows that in farming and forestry in England and Wales the percentage of unemployment in 1938 was 5.5, and in Scotland 6.4. In market gardening and horticulture it was 7.1 in England and Wales and 15.4 in Scotland. In other gardening, excluding private gardening, it was 4.2 in England and Wales and 7 per cent. in Scotland. Therefore, all the predictions made by the experts that unemployment insurance would work out on a lower basis in Scotland have been falsified. We have once already reduced the contributions and if the House agrees to-night to pass the Order which is on the Paper to-day we shall again reduce the contributions. In the light of these facts and of the fact that the administrative cost has been higher than the amount of the rebate we propose to carry out the recommendation of the Committee and abolish that system as from July, 1940, and the new procedure will start to operate from July, 1939.
To sum up, the Bill makes a number of changes in favour of the insured contributor and also aims at affecting certain minor amendments where experience has shown that the present law is capable of improvement, and in moving this Second Reading I am, therefore, inviting the House once more to become the agents of reform.

Mr. Errington: Can the Minister indicate whether there is any likelihood of any scheme for casual workers being produced in the near future?

Mr. Brown: That question does not arise upon this Bill.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: In opening the Debate the right hon. Gentleman said that this Bill was varied, interesting and important. Having heard his description of the Bill the House will certainly agree that it is varied. In spite of some of the Clauses which are desirable, I should be inclined to describe it not so much as a Parliamentary Bill as a herring, and certain hon. Gentleman who have spoken to me


in confidence about it have shown that with all their experience they were in very much the same difficulty as I am regarding certain sections of it. Seeing that the first three Clauses of the Bill deal with a very big subject, I think it is a pity they were not taken by themselves, so that we might have had a clear day to discuss that side of the matter. Those of us who have been acquainted for so many years with the question of holidays will remember that when the Government attempted to put a Clause into the Bill of 1934 there was a long and excited Debate, in which many Members on the Government Benches took part, and that it was kept up with such spirit that the Government felt compelled to retreat from any attempt to deal with the matter in any other way except by umpire decisions. This Bill, in the first three Clauses, makes the attempt to deal with that subject, because, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the report upon this matter has been issued, and the committee said that the position had been altered by virtue of the fact that now there was a three days waiting period instead of six, and that the question of the waiting period and holidays with pay was developing at a great rate. While I do not object to the right hon. Gentleman giving figures of the people who are affected by holidays with pay and who have made agreements, I do not see what that had to do with the case. I rather thought it was an artful piece of camouflage on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. E. Brown: I had not that in mind at all. What I had in mind was that the more millions there are affected by holidays the more indefensible it becomes to leave the unemployment insurance scheme without a definite holiday law.

Mr. Lawson: What struck me was that the right hon. Gentleman gave far more time to the number of agreements that have been made than to an interpretation of the three Clauses in this Bill which are so important. What does the right hon. Gentleman ask? Here is a subject which touches the men and women in industry so vitally and at so many points that for long years it has been the subject of a multitude of decisions by the Umpires. It is difficult for those decisions to be applied rigidly in the same way to all cases, so that from time to time new

cases with new aspects have to be considered afresh by the Umpire. There is a Biblical saying that there is no new thing under the sun. I should say that the Umpire under unemployment insurance would deny that as far as holidays and waiting are concerned. The right hon. Gentleman is asking the House, on the advice of this report, to give him the right to take all that over from the Umpire. Regulations will be made and people will no longer have the right 1o plead their case before the Umpire. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is right about the Regulations. I take it that he is, but the drafting of this Bill makes no reference to the 1934 Act, under which, it will be remembered, it was decided after long Debate that the Regulations were to come before the House. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is right upon that point and I take his word for it. These Regulations will have to come before the House and be considered once. I hope they will come at the proper time, for often there is not time for the proper consideration of Regulations. Having been considered by the House, they will pass out of our ken altogether.

Mr. Foot: If these Regulations are dealt with in the same way as under the 1935 Act, which is the principal Act, they will not have to come before the House. They have only to be laid and the House can raise the matter on a Prayer.

Mr. Lawson: Does that mean that we will not necessarily have an opportunity of discussing them?

Mr. E. Brown: Not necessarily. It is the normal procedure of the House. If there is any real grievance about the Regulations there is no difficulty about getting them discussed.

Mr. Lawson: The House now sees how much bigger this question is than it appeared to be at first. Here is one of the questions which arouses most controversy outside. It gave rise to one of the biggest Debates on a Bill on which there were many important Debates, and in that Debate Members behind the Government practically refused to give the Government the right for which the Minister is asking to-night. That is a very important matter and I submit that the House will have to give serious consideration to the matter before we pass a Bill of this kind. It should be remembered, too, that this kind of thing concerns great


masses of people. Involved in it is not only the question of benefit for holidays. I am not going to argue that question. The Committee considered it at great length and they did more than the right hon. Gentleman has done in the way of defining holidays. He has not attempted a definition of holidays in the Bill and he did not attempt any explanation during his speech. The Committee did, at least, attempt to deal with that subject. They mentioned general holidays, local holidays, holidays resting on agreements, and holidays of other kinds, but the right hon. Gentleman does not attempt any definition. Does the first Clause apply only to people who are employed and on holidays, or does it apply also to the unemployed who have been continuously unemployed? I ask that because Subsection (4) says:
Any such regulations as aforesaid may be made so as to apply either generally as respects all insured contributors, employed contributors or employed persons, or as respects any particular insured contributors, employed contributors or employed persons, or any class or classes thereof.
I am wondering where the question of availability is coming in on the part of the people who are really unemployed and have been unemployed long before the date of the holiday. It is clear that the intention is that where certain holidays have been paid for in the past they will not be paid for in future, and the right hon. Gentleman said that is going to be the essence of his regulations. The question will be argued to-night whether those payments are to be made, rightly or wrongly, as the report says. The House, however, ought to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is taking power to stop those payments.
There is also the question of the waiting period. Those who have had the holidays counted as waiting period cannot now call them waiting days. That is an important point. In some respects it is in a different category from the benefit period. It wants seriously examining from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman having the power to interfere with it. The question of waiting is of profound importance to great masses of workers. A member of my trade union organisation wrote to me about this matter and said:
When all the pits are closed on Good Friday and Easter Saturday and Monday, the

men would not be able to claim this as a waiting period, and would not be entitled to benefit for any three days in any six days of unemployment within a period of six weeks.
It is 20 weeks under the Bill. I am pleased that the period of continuity has been increased, but I would rather have the 10 weeks and the holidays counted as waiting days than have the 20 weeks period. The three days waiting period for holidays will be lost to the workers. I ask the House to remember that the bulk of the people who are subject to this are those who are subject in the main to intermittent work nearly all through the year, and they are in a category which is almost always temporarily unemployed. This month there are 350,000 who are among the temporarily unemployed. That is not all of them, for there are others who are not counted because they are now back among the regulars and are wholly unemployed.
The large industries, particularly the export industries, are subject to loss of work for a day or two continuously over the year. I do not know the proportion of such classes of workers to the salaried workers, but I know that if there is any section of workers which need sympathetic consideration from the House it is the section of intermittent workers. I know very well that the House has always given sympathy, even though it has not been extended to proper payments, to the long-term unemployed. I have always thought that the intermittent worker was as much entitled to our consideration as the long-term worker, in the sense that the intermittent workers are those who get the small wages. To lose a day's wages means to them the difference between getting and not getting the things that are absolutely necessary.
In regard to the three days, take the Easter holidays. It is true that the man is idle but if he is a cotton worker, he is in a much worse position even than if he is a miner. Suppose he is idle for the next three days at Easter time. It may just be possible that the mine or the mill is working off certain orders and that they finish on the Thursday. It may be that the employers have certain orders. They finish on the Thursday and the company and the men know that they will probably be idle. The men are to lose the benefit which they have had in the past of those three days as waiting period. That is a very serious suggestion for the


Minister to make, and I should think it would touch the temporarily-unemployed standard of approximately a million souls in this country. Is it the intention of the Government to carry out that section of the report which altogether rules out the possibility of carrying on the practice which has prevailed in the past? It may be true to say that men have received the benefit of the holiday in those periods, but it also is true that they are penalised to that extent and their position is made worse for the future. When one considers the exporting industries, one realises the hardships to which the mass of the people are put from year to year. This House should consider very seriously indeed before it gives the Minister any such power as is proposed. The report states, on page 14:
It is, perhaps, not irrelevant to observe that, in interpreting the same statutory words, the Umpire in Northern Ireland has taken a different view from the Umpire in Great Britain. Recognised holidays in Northern Ireland do not count either for benefit or for continuity of unemployment. We think that the opposite view taken by the Umpire in Great Britain, and the resulting distinction whereby holidays may count for continuity of unemployment though not for benefit, should now be negatived by Statute.
The argument is not that it is sound, but that the Northern Ireland umpire has decided against it and therefore, in order to make the matter uniform, the power should be taken away from the umpire in this country. Mark that the committee felt that this was so serious that they said; "As we have taken something away we had better give something back," so they gave the extra 10 weeks. Important as that is, immediately this thing comes into operation tens of thousands of workers will be directly penalised as a result. Speaking generally upon the first Clause dealing with these matters, I hope that we shall have an answer upon the point as to whether this concerns the unemployed who are out of work before the holiday period begins. It seems to me that there may be some tension behind this matter which does not he upon the surface, and I should like to be assured about it.
Then there is the Clause about suspensions. The right hon. Gentleman has explained it, and the House must be very pleased that there is to be an attempt to regularise that matter. That is put forward in order to give workers who have had certain advantages the benefit of

those advantages without penalising them, and that is an improvement. The regulations under the Clause will be very important, but they need to be made with very great care in order that the intention of the Statutory Committee is carried out. The Clause also extends the classes of dependants in respect of which increase of benefit may be paid. The right hon. Gentleman quite rightly made a great deal of that. We welcome that Clause; I should like to have seen the right hon. Gentleman dealing even more roundly with the matter. By the practice of the umpire, and by certain methods of calculation, it works out that dependants in many cases do not have the advantage of the operation of the dependants Clause. The Trades Union Congress has seen the Minister on this matter.
I understand that what takes place is illustrated by a case which came before the umpire, in which a man was working for 41s., his wife was earning about 39s. and the mother had an income of 10s. That was 90s. I understand that the practice of the umpire is to divide that sum by three and to say that 30s. is the average amount to maintain each person in that house. As that man, who was the claimant, had only an income of 41s., or us. over the 30s., he could not be maintaining the mother. That may seem a good arrangement but it is bad logic and it is quite apparent —

Mr. Buchanan: The man could not claim for his mother if he were living with his wife. I think the facts of the case were slightly different, as far as I can gather, and that it was a daughter with the man.

Mr. Lawson: I would not at this moment be absolutely sure about the particular persons. I have the case here as given to me, and the facts set down there are as I have stated.

Mr. Buchanan: It would not be his wife.

Mr. Lawson: In any case it is the practice of the umpire to divide the amount.

Mr. Buchanan: That is right.

Mr. Lawson: It works out in actual fact that although the dependant is being maintained by the man, on the method of calculation the umpire decides against that person. The Trades Union Congress


met the right hon. Gentleman and gave him a number of cases. When they met him he said: "I cannot do anything with this matter. I cannot interfere with the umpire. It will be necessary to alter the law before I can deal with this matter." In view of that statement I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have taken the opportunity to make the point clear. While there is some virtue in extending the number of dependants for whom a claim can be made, it is clear at the same time that many people will be penalised, as they are at the present time, unless there is an alteration in the law. I was wondering whether it would be possible so to amend the Clause as to deal with a matter of this kind.
On the question of training, the Minister has explained to us how he is simply extending the Clauses relating to those who are over 18 in the principal Act, and applying them to those of 16 years of age. In spite of all the good things that have been said about training there has been a good deal of criticism about the training system. Could the Minister really get down to an investigation of the after-history of the people who have been trained? There has been criticism to the effect that training does no good, does not get jobs and does not get wages. The trade unions have rightly made the criticism that some of those who are trained, or are only half trained, take the jobs of people who have been apprenticed, and in that way tend to lower the wages of the craft or trade. It would be good if the Minister could make an inquiry into that matter in order to know exactly what is taking place. From time to time the Trades Union Congress has asked the Minister to carry on the training under proper conditions. If you are going to train boys between the ages of 16 and 18 years of age it has to be remembered that 16 is the apprenticeship age and that boys at 18 are past that age. Is it not possible to carry out a system of apprenticeship in a proper way? At the very least, the unions concerned ought to be consulted upon this matter, particularly as this is an extension of the principle of training.
It is well known that for many years there has been a good deal of antagonism in this House. I have supported generally the principle of training, but unless

proper steps are taken to cover this matter of the boys between 16 and 18 years of age this will be just an extension of the danger. Now there is an opportunity of taking counsel with representative trade union organisations and of allaying their just suspicions that these trained or semi-trained men tend to undermine the standards and wages of those who are working. In the best interests of proper and efficient training, the organisations ought to be consulted very closely on this important matter.
Clause 11 of the Bill deals with the provisions relating to Northern Ireland, and provides for the making of certain arrangements by the Minister. That is very useful, but the question arises why nothing is done to bring about reciprocal arrangements with Southern Ireland. Arrangements were in operation, but broke down about 1924, and no serious effort appears to have been made since to put the matter right, although repeated representations have been made to the Minister of Labour. There is great need for reconsideration of this matter. On the borders between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, people working on one side of the border and living on the other side can never get any benefit for their insurance stamps; and persons going from this country to Ireland find that their stamps are of no use to them when they return here. That is particularly hard in the case of seamen working on a ship in Ireland and domiciled in this country. It seems to me that this opportunity might be taken to improve the Clause in order to make reciprocal arrangements with the South of Ireland as well as with the North.
The Bill, as I have said, is a very important one. It is not a small Bill, though some impression to that effect has been given during the past few weeks. We welcome some of the Clauses, but we must await answers to many questions which I have put before we are prepared to give a decision in favour of the Bill, and I must say, in view of the first two or three Clauses, that the answers will have to be extremely satisfactory before we can agree to give our vote for a Bill of this kind.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: It is some time since we had the opportunity of considering an Unemployment Insurance Bill in


this House. Prior to 1934, we used to have a frequent succession of such Bills; they appeared before us every month or two, and made some important changes in the structure of the scheme. The Bill to-day is undoubtedly an important Measure. Its importance lies in the fact that every person within the ambit of the scheme may find himself affected by it at some time or other, and it is particularly important because it appears to affect, so far as one can judge, the great body of those who are intermittently employed. There is much that is uncertain in the Bill, because it is an enabling Bill, and will proceed in the main by regulations, which will be more important than the Bill itself and will require to be scrutinised with the greatest possible care. I hope the Minister will be able to make it clear in the course of the Debate that Parliament will have an effective opportunity of expressing its opinion with regard to the regulations.
I should like to refer to Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, which says:
The Minister may by regulations prescribe. …
I take it that, in the case of regulations prescribed by the Minister, Parliament has no say whatever with regard to the regulations. Although, so far as I can understand it, I approve of Clause 2 and regard it as a beneficent Clause, I do not think it should be within the power of the Minister to prescribe any regulation with regard to unemployed people without reference to Parliament, and I hope that the word may be withdrawn in that context and some other word substituted for it.
I and my hon. Friends regret very much that an Unemployment Insurance Bill should be brought before the House without including, among the many categories in the Bill, the long-deferred provision with regard to non-manual workers. That is a very ancient matter now. Its history has been a triumph of Parliamentary procrastination. It was recommended by the Royal Commission of 1931 or 1932, and in 1934, when the Bill of that year was before us, we had long discussions on it, and the proposal to include them in that Bill was only withdrawn because the Minister of the day said he would refer the matter for consideration to the Statutory Committee to be set up under the Bill. On that, those who were sponsoring the proposal in the

House and outside it withdrew their proposals and decided to await the result of the Statutory Committee's consideration.
In March, 1934, the Minister of the day, in accordance with his promise, referred the matter to the Statutory Committee, and a year later, in February, 1935, the Statutory Committee proposed by a majority that the income limit should be raised to £400. The employers' representatives on the Committee, although they did not dissent from the proposal that the limit should be raised, suggested a somewhat lower level. At all stages, both outside and inside the House, there has been unanimity on the matter, but the Government, so far as I know, have never yet revealed their intentions with regard to it. From that day to this, both outside and inside the House, questions have been insistently asked as to the attitude of the Government on this matter and when they proposed to act. Some 30 or 40 questions have been put by Members of the House on this subject, and, if anyone wishes to make a study of the art of Parliamentary reply, and to become a master of that subject, I suggest that, if he takes those questions and studies them, he will not require to look at very much more. They were, in fact, the subject of a special article in one of the papers, entitled "Stonewall Brown." They are a most interesting study in Parliamentary procrastination. We wish to record a protest that an Unemployment Insurance Bill should come to this House without including this long-asked-for provision on behalf of the non-manual workers.
Clause 1 of the Bill, which relates to holidays, is probably one of the most important Clauses, and it requires the closest consideration of Members of the House. It is quite clear that the Bill as drafted is merely an enabling Measure, and we cannot be sure what exactly are the intentions behind it. I would associate myself with the question which was put by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) with regard to Subsection (4), which says:
Any such regulations as aforesaid may be made so as to apply either generally as respects all insured contributors, employed contributors or employed persons, or as respects any particular insured contributors, employed contributors or employed persons, or any class or classes thereof.
As far as I can understand the Clause, it will act to the detriment of a large


number of casual workers. They will lose the payment to which they have been entitled in the past if they are employed on Christmas Day and Boxing Day and have been unemployed in addition for 12 days. Clearly that must be the intention, because it is suggested in the explanatory Memorandum, and reference was made to it by the Minister, that in this connection a sum of £400,000 is to be saved. I would refer to the further statement by the Statutory Committee, which also was referred to by the Minister and apparently was accepted by the House, that, in connection with the extension of the period of continuous employment which will not require a waiting period from 10 weeks to 20 weeks, there will be paid out a corresponding amount of £600,000 in additional benefit. That might be a very satisfactory bargain if there were any certainty or guarantee that the people who were going to lose the £400,000 were going to get the £600,000. But there is nothing to show that they will be the same persons; in fact, I think there is a strong balance of probability that they will not be the same persons, and it is misleading to suggest that, because on the one hand a certain class of contributors are going to lose £400,000, and someone is going to gain £600,000, the people are the same, and that it will not mean, as I believe it will, a further hardship upon casual and individual workers.
Attention has been drawn to the fact that proposals of this kind were made during the discussions on the Bill of 1934, and the Statutory Committee said in their report that the proposal was withdrawn as the result of criticism in the House of Commons directed to showing that a change of law under the provisions then in force as to continuity and length of waiting period might cause hardship in particular cases by restricting unduly the drawing of benefit. I submit with some confidence to the House that those conditions of hardship will prevail under the present arrangement, in spite of the fact that there has been some alteration with regard to the waiting period. While one does not know what the consequences of Clause 1 may be when it is put into practice by regulation, I am very much afraid that it will place a further burden and hardship on a number of people who have already consistently suffered for many years under the operation of the existing

Act. It is right to say that it is desirable that these matters should be put on such a footing that they will be clearly understood by everyone, and that the amount of work laid upon the courts of referees and the Umpire should be reduced; but I am by no means certain that the procedure here indicated will not in its turn mean a great deal of anomaly and a great deal of work for the courts of referees.
With regard to Clause 2, I am glad the Minister has taken the opportunity to regularise those schemes, which have been adopted by some important industrial organisations, and have for their purpose an increase of security for their employés. There were anomalies there, as the law stood, between one employé and another and one firm and another within the same industry. It always seemed to me that where employés and employers have paid insurance benefits, the employé was entitled to receive his benefit, even if the employer decided to increase the man's security by paying him something in addition. I hope Clause 2 will clear up any uncertainty that may remain in anybody's mind on that point. I should like to express the hope again that the word "prescribed" in connection with the Regulation may be withdrawn and some other word substituted.
This Bill is interesting also because it seems to carry a stage further the game of badminton which is being played between the Minister of Labour and the chairman of the Unemployment Assistance Board. It is proposed that the Unemployment Insurance Fund shall save £400,000, which would have been paid to insured persons in respect of holidays—Christmas Day, Easter and the like—but the effect will simply be that those persons will go to the Unemployment Assistance Board and invite them to pay for the holidays, as they now pay for the waiting period. The effect will be that, whereas there will be a saving to the fund, there will be a corresponding debit to the Board, which ought to be taken into account. I hope that some day we shall have some body whose duty it will be to supervise all these strange developments of our social services, with all the compartmentalism—if that is the word—which goes on to-day. A better way would have been to tell Parliament that here was a saving of £400,000 which would be transferred to the Unemployment Assistance Board account.
But when we come to Clause 3 we find that the Board are going to get their whack, because they pay allowances to some thousands of people every month in respect of the waiting period only. The whole thing is an amazing example of inept administration. I am not blaming the Minister of Labour for it in any way, because he is not responsible for the operations of the Board, although he has to answer for them in this House. We welcome the provision in Clause 4 in respect of dependants for whom benefit may be paid. We have no objection to Clause 5, but I hope the House is fully seized of the meaning of paragraph (b). It will be observed that
for the purpose of paragraph (b) of Subsection (r) of Section thirty-two of the principal Act, the last day in that year in respect of which he received benefit shall be taken to be the day in that year on which he would have exhausted his benefit rights if the claim in respect of each period had been finally determined before the claim in respect of any subsequent period was made.
I hope the House is fully seized of the importance of that. The law being as it is, it is as well that it should be kept, and the practice, which has become quite general, of failing to draw benefit on the last day of any benefit year, in order to carry forward the claim and obviate the necessity of getting another 10 stamps before benefit can be drawn, is one which should be discouraged. The law may be right or wrong, but it ought to be kept.

Mr. Buchanan: What about Income Tax payers and their methods?

Mr. White: I do not want to be drawn into a discussion about Income Tax, which I should probably be quite incapable of sustaining. A practice has grown up which has put the Court of Referees in a difficult position. With regard to Clause 8, I always regard such a Clause with sympathy, and I am anxious to give it support. There is an increasing interest in training, and I hope that it will continue. Many younger people who started in blind-alley occupations have before them the example of their relatives, whose position gets worse in every succeeding year if they have had no training and no skill. Therefore, I hope the facilities will be availed of, and that they will be made readily available. I would like to know whether the extension of these facilities means that the Unemployment Assistance Board

have now finally abandoned the field of training. I would like to think that it had been abandoned by the Board and taken over by the Minister, who has obviously greater experience in these matters than the Board can have.
If it were desired to give some compensation to those who, we must presume, will lose payment of benefit for holidays under Clause 1, I wish some consideration could be given to the possibility of giving benefit for odd days of unemployment. I cannot say what that would cost. It is clear that no certain compensation will be given to them under the Clause which deals with the extension of the waiting period.
We shall await with interest the statement which will be made in reply to the questions put with regard to the regulations. These are matters to which we attach great importance. What the Bill is going to do under Clauses 1 and 2 we cannot tell. It is at this stage a matter for speculation. But we feel very strongly that whatever regulations are made on these matters which are going to affect not only the unemployed people in general but that section which is intermittently and casually employed, the regulations should not be made without those who represent those people in Parliament having a full opportunity of considering them.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: These matters are terribly important, yet the fact that the House is so very sparsely attended indicates that very few Members are interested in them. I have no doubt that if on another day we were discussing the utilisation of these men for purposes of war this House would be packed. When we criticise people outside for not taking such an interest in social affairs as they should, the House of Commons should set an example. Issues which are very important ought to be decided in an intelligent way, with discussion, and it seems to me a terrible thing that the House of Commons should take so little interest in them.
I congratulate all the three speakers who have preceded me to-day on the fact that none of them has used the phrase which I read in a paper the other day. I think it is the phrase of a snob. I read it in a publication of the National Labour party. As far as I can remember, it ran something like this: "The Bill is all right


—or at least part of it is all right—but it does not grip the fundamentals. You are increasing benefits, but what does that matter? You ought to grasp the subject in a fundamental manner." I do not know the National Labour party's point of view, other than that they have representatives in the Cabinet. If they want to grasp fundamentals, it is through their representatives in the Cabinet that they should do so. In any case, while you are waiting to grasp fundamentals there is no excuse for this House not seeing that the victims of the situation are decently dealt with. The phrase is a snobbish one, and carries little weight.
This Bill proposes to do a number of things which are in themselves an improvement, but one thing is a backward step. I frankly confess that I have now stopped dividing the House with two or three Members, but if I had been in command of larger numbers I should have had a reasoned Amendment down, and should have divided against the Bill. I look on the holiday provision, apart from its loss of £400,000, as being, in view of all the modern thought and progress, a terribly retrograde step in dealing with the unemployed. I would have marked my detestation of that by voting in the Division Lobby, even allowing for the other improvements. The Bill proposes to make certain improvements. I suppose that as the right hon. Gentleman is granting benefit to the daughter and the sister, I ought to do what hon. Members did at Question Time in respect to another matter and tumble over myself in expressing my gratitude. I am indeed grateful for anything that I get now, because, with the international situation as it is, I seldom get anything else but kicks.
I agree fully with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) in his attitude to dependants benefit. I would like the Minister to look at this point again. Why should not a housekeeper be included in respect of dependants benefit? If a man who has a housekeeper is thrown out of work, why should he not be allowed dependants benefit for the housekeeper. What can be the objection? I have heard of one objection, which is, that it might throw open the door for an unemployed man to introduce a woman. If he has children, the law allows him to bring in such a woman. I think that this sort of thing

would so seldom occur that it would not be worth bothering about. Is there no way in which Parliament can safeguard the position? If the unemployed man can show that his housekeeper has been in his employ before he makes his claim, surely that should be a sufficient safeguard. The man with a housekeeper is in a worse position than any other unemployed insured person. Although he is unemployed he has to pay Health Insurance for his housekeeper,
I think that the case made by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street with regard to dependants is the correct one. Take the case of a son living with his mother. The son contributes to the household 28s. a week, and the mother receives a pension of 10s., making the total income 38s. That man does not receive dependant's benefit in respect of his mother. It is not the 10s. a week that maintains the woman, but mainly the 28s. contributed by the son, yet because of the peculiar form of calculation that is adopted the son does not receive dependant's benefit. I appeal to the Minister, apart from the merits of the case, to try and make unemployment insurance simple so that the insured can understand it. I have great respect for the unbounded capacity of Ministry of Labour officials, who have the capacity to understand and to try and make them selves easy of approach. Surely the unemployed man is entitled to know the method of working. It has never been laid down in the Act. All that it says is that you must mainly maintain, and the umpire, by the processes of case law, has laid down some kind of regulations. I plead with the Minister to make this simple. I have sat in the court of referees. The court often wishes to ensure proposer maintenance but it is bound by the umpire's decision and calculation. Let the Minister sweep away the calculation; allow the court of referees the right of examining the issue without this fancy calculation. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the whole question of the housekeeper. If a man does not receive benefit in respect of his housekeeper when he is thrown out of work, he often has to dismiss her.
The arrangement with regard to the boarder brings about an improvement, but I want to pass on to say a few words about training. The Minister was very adamant on the point that he was not going to overcrowd any particular trade.


He said that we must take the circumstances into account, and I would ask him to re-examine training from this point of view. Hitherto it has been carried out almost entirely for men intended for manual occupations, and he has not thought of tackling it in respect of training men for professional types of employment. Why should he not extend the training so as to include university courses? We always talk of men being trained as joiners and for other trades, but why not consider the desirability of men going into training not for six months, but for much longer periods for professional courses. Why should they not throw open the universities to the unemployed. If a young man of 16, 17 or 18 years of age has the knowledge and intelligence to go in for and to master one of the professions, why should not the Minister of Labour throw open the whole of the resources to that man? At the moment he actually penalises him.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the matter again. A relative of mine who was employed at Boots, the chemists, for four or five years, suddenly decided that he would like to study with the object of becoming a doctor. He became eligible for unemployment benefit. He went to Glasgow University to study medicine, but the Minister came along and stopped his benefit because he was not available for work. If such a man went to a training centre he would not be available for work, but in that case he would receive unemployment benefit. I ask the Minister to try to enlarge the scope of the Act in this particular matter.
The holiday issue is really the kernel of the Bill, and I look upon it as deplorably reactionary from many points of view. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) said that many of the people who will get this £600,000 will not be the same people who will lose the £400,000, and he is right. Everybody seems to think that the law should be evenly applied in the country, that there should be no distinction between locality and locality, and that the law should be no respecter of persons. What is the holiday practice in this country? The holiday practice in Britain varies in every district. On this holiday question Scotland is going to suffer by far the worst. London is largely not affected by it because the practice is that you

have Christmas and Boxing Day, then Easter—Good Friday and the Monday after—the August Bank Holiday and Whitsuntide—altogether eight days of recognised holiday. A firm does not post a notice that it will shut down for 10 days. The men say, "We have arranged that we will take our holidays at such a time," and it is a mutual arrangement between them and the firm.
On the Clyde, and on the North-East Coast to some extent, our practice is a much more serious one. We have undefined holidays and under this Bill no man can get benefit for a day of holiday. That is laid down in the Bill and regulations cannot modify it. The average holiday at the New Year is seven days and the average summer holiday is 12—that is 19 days. Then there are two days equivalent to what we call our Autumn holidays. That is 21, then there is one day at Easter, which brings the total up to 22 days in the year for which no benefit can be paid. That means that our holiday period, because of local conditions, becomes a circumstance far out-weighing any other part of the country. What we call the Scotch Summer holiday is a fortnight and, in addition to that, the firm says, "You have not got to come back at the end of 12 days, as we usually bring you. You can go on for another 10 days after that." The present position is that he gets no benefit.
Under this proposal it is going to be worse. The umpire has decided that the holidays can be treated as unemployment provided that the man is out and receives no payment for 12 days plus his normal holiday. In other words, if he gets, say, 12 days in the summer, he has to be out for 24 days before the first 12 days can count. What is the position now? He got 12 days payment, because his 12 days holiday counted as a waiting period and allowed him to qualify for the additional days. Under the new Bill these days cannot count for continuity or for waiting period purposes, and the consequence is that this man, before he can be paid, must be out for at least 24 days. It is said that he can draw unemployment assistance, but he cannot claim it unless he has a claim to benefit and qualifies by signing.
A casual worker who is unemployed is entitled to see the sea as much as any other man in the country. I was 19


before I saw the seashore and knew what a cockle or a mussel was. I do not want unemployed men to be denied the right of access to the sea. I trust that the Minister will aid people to get holidays. What happens to us? Has anyone walked a Glasgow street at the holiday period when the works are shut down? It. is a terrible time to be in the city. Always in my mind I knew that when we got holidays with pay someone would suffer, and it would be the unemployed man. If a man who has 50 weeks work in the year needs a week or two weeks holiday, surely the man who has intermittent employment, who really qualifies for payment from his employer because of his intervals of unemployment, is entitled to be paid during the holiday period. I trust that the Minister will cast his mind back to 1934 when the right hon. Gentleman who is now travelling Europe took charge of this matter. The Government wanted to abolish payment for holidays and the House did not let him.
It is a good thing to be away from Glasgow during the holidays. If a man is at home he cannot get work, because there is not a place open for him. Why should he not get to the sea or visit his relatives? Why should he be penalised if he does? I am sick and tired of reports which fling accusations at the unemployed without a bit of proof. Who is Sir William Beveridge, any more than the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that he has the right to say things without proof? He talks about bringing the scheme into disrepute. Whoever heard such a charge made, that a man paid for a day or two at holiday time was bringing the scheme into disrepute? Who is he to throw charges about? Judges lay down that you ought never to make charges against groups of men without adducing proof. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East, know the unemployed and know the conditions just as well as the Beveridge Committee.
I remember the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I believe in this seat, with piles of books showing how the Unemployment Insurance Act had been amended. I was not impressed as most other Members were. I do not blame the Government

for amending the Act and I trust the Opposition will keep on and make them amend it, and amend it, and amend it. Unemployment insurance, in the nature of things, can never remain a stationary matter that cannot be amended. The Bill represents two or three changes since the main Act was passed. I welcome the vertical abolition of the waiting period for those who follow casual employment. I have always taken the view that there was no need for a waiting period. It arose out of a total misconception of the facts. In so far as this marks an improvement, I welcome it, but I wish the Minister had tackled unemployment insurance in a bigger and bolder way. I cannot understand why large numbers of people who are outside now should still remain outside the Act. My view is that, if you are running unemployment insurance, everyone should be inside it—Members of Parliament and professional men—and we all ought to be contributing to it in something like an equitable fashion. The Bill, like most of the things which the present Government have done, is a clever Bill. It gives a little and takes a little away; perhaps on balance it gives a little more to the unemployed than it takes away. But the holiday proposals mark a retrograde step, and to my mind take away much that is good in the Bill. I trust that the House will take an enlightened view of the holiday question, will not inflict penalties but will treat the people who come under the Bill as human beings whom they wish to encourage in enjoying life with an abundance which they have never had the privilege of experiencing before.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: The House always listens with care and attention to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), because hon. Members recognise that he has a mastery of the details of unemployment insurance denied apparently to all except those who have ministerial responsibility. For that reason I always listen very carefully to him and hesitate to argue with him on questions of unemployment insurance. On the other hand, I think he is a little sentimental in his outlook and therefore forgets sometimes that the fund has to be protected. If you do not protect the fund the ultimate result will be a reduction in benefits. There is not an inexhaustible sum available for the provision of benefits. I must


say that the hon. Member made a most powerful appeal for a careful examination of the holiday provisions. It is clearly wrong that a person should be paid wages and unemployment benefit, but that, of course, is not what concerns the hon. Member. He is perturbed about the great difficulty of defining holidays. He made a vigorous appeal that unemployment insurance should be simpler. We would all like to see it simpler, as we would all like to see the Income Tax law simpler. It is difficult to define income, and a great many people get busy in trying to represent that what is income is something else, and that is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer produces every year a variety of complicated Clauses in order to prevent evasions. There is a section of the community which will drive a coach and four through the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and these various checks are designed 1o deal with a fraudulent minority. If you allow this small minority to get away with it then the demoralisation spreads, and ultimately the whole financial structure falls. That is an aspect of the matter which the hon. Member for Gorbals in his kindness of heart sometimes overlooks.
I think the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) was a little unfair in discussing Clause I when he quoted from the report of the Statutory Committee. He left out these words, which I will quote:
Whatever the justification for the rule adopted by the Umpire in the past, the position in regard to possible hardship has been changed radically by the reduction of the waiting time from six days to three days. With that reduction the rule, as explained above, produces indefensible anomalies and inconveniences.
For once the hon. Member was unfair in making a partial quotation because a complete quotation would have destroyed his argument. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) raised a point which I did not quite understand, and I hope I do not misinterpret him. In regard to Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, he said that "the Minister may by regulations prescribe," and then implied that the House would have no control over these regulations. The hon. Member, I think, must have overlooked Clause 17, which lays it down that:
This Act may be cited as the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1939, and this Act and the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to

1938, shall be construed as one and may be cited together as the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to I939.
That is to say, the provisions of the principal Act and this Bill must be read together, and I think it is Section 105 of the principal Act which lays down the procedure in respect of the regulations which may be prescribed. Those regulations have to be laid on the Table of the House and call for an affirmative Resolution. At any rate Parliament if it wishes has control.

Mr. Buchanan: These regulations may be placed on the Table in July and the House may rise until October, and all the time they can operate until the House meets again.

Mr. Williams: I agree that there is always that difficulty, but we have to assume that the game is played fairly and that tricks of that kind are not customary, unless some abnormal emergency calls for action at a time when Parliament is not sitting. In the ordinary way there is ample opportunity for Parliament to examine regulations, and then if they are found to be objectionable the Prayer would be widely supported. In actual practice before regulations are laid on the Table of the House it is almost certain that they will be submitted in draft to all sorts of people whose advice is obtained.

Mr. Buchanan: I have never seen them myself.

Mr. Williams: I am certain that the hon. Member sees all that he wants to see I think the case for regulations is very strong. Take the question of holidays. It is a difficult thing to define holidays, and if hon. Members will look at paragraph (a) of Clause 1 they will see that the regulations will prescribe what is to be deemed a holiday. In fact, the definition of a holiday is to be prescribed by regulations, and that has the great advantage that if the prescription first adopted turns out to be unfortunate it can be modified by a simple procedure, much simpler than the procedure of introducing a fresh Bill. That is a case where regulations are justified. I want to congratulate the Minister on extending the continuity rule from 10 weeks to 20 weeks. I am a little interested in this because in 1927 I pestered the late Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland for many weeks when the Bill of that year was before Parliament to extend the


period from six weeks to ten weeks. The six weeks inflicted great injustice on many parts of the country on account of its effect between Easter and Whitsuntide, and ultimately I found satisfaction when I moved an Amendment and it was accepted, because I knew that I was rescuing tens of thousands of people from a difficulty which afflicted them periodically. I rejoice that the fund can now stand a further extension to 20 weeks. I am sure it is going to help a very great deal.
I think that some waiting period is necessary; otherwise you are going to impose on the Fund a colossal charge which would greatly prejudice real benefits. If you are going to treat every single day's unemployment the charge on the Fund might well run into several million pounds a year, and in the long run the standard rate of benefit would have to be reduced. The waiting period was not the invention of the Liberal or Conservative party but of the trade unions, who in their own schemes of insurance invariably had a waiting period. I think it should be reasonably short, and that three days is a fair compromise when the Fund can stand it. I should be opposed to its complete abolition. The Minister is entitled to be congratulated on the Bill, and I hope he will give the utmost attention to the remarks of the hon. Member for Gorbals, who made out a weighty case for some re-examination of the precise terms of what should ultimately be inserted in the regulations.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: I have sat here since the beginning of the Debate and the speeches which have been made have only increased my concern with regard to some of the Clauses of the Bill. The Minister used a phrase which caused me grave anxiety. He said that "holidays should be treated as an incident of employment." If that is the principle on which the regulations will be issued, then there is some reason for my apprehension. The Memorandum to the Bill says in regard to Clause 1 that it:
enables regulations to be made for the purpose of deciding when a person is on holiday.
I wish to address my remarks to that point in particular. First of all, I should like to put one or two questions to the Minister. The question of what are holi-

days is bound to give rise to a great deal of differences of interpretation. For example, various payments are made throughout the country, at holiday periods, but there is no uniformity; and I want to ask whether there should not be uniformity in the administration of this Bill? Secondly, "availability for employment" will affect applicants for benefit in this way. At the present time when men desire to obtain a waiting period all they need do at holiday time is to leave their name and address, and their benefit is paid. Will that be altered as a result of the Bill? If it is, I want to suggest that it is most unfair to put applicants for benefit in the position that simply because they are applying for benefit they cannot go on holiday because of the new interpretation which may be placed upon it under the Bill. I hope the Minister will bear in mind what I am saying when he is considering the framing of the regulations.
In the first place, I think we ought to remind the Minister and the House that the unemployment insurance scheme is an insurance scheme, that it is not a lottery, and that people who are contributing regularly to it ought to be in no doubt as to their right to benefit when they apply for it. I say that because of the experience we have had in areas like Lancashire, North Staffordshire and part of Nottingham. The Anomalies Act gave the Minister the right to draw up regulations, and those affecting married women in particular are a shame to this House and a shame to those responsible for them. I hope that the regulations to be made under this Bill will not be drawn in the same way as those under the Anomalies Act were. According to this report, and the articles I have read on the ideas contained in it, a big factor when the Minister is considering the regulations will be the method of payment during holiday periods in the various industries. In one case—and I hope the Minister will bear this in mind—where persons are supposed to receive payment for holidays it is not a payment for holidays at all; it is a timekeeping process, and in other cases agreed credits are paid in lieu of advances in wages. In the case of an application by engineering workers, the reply given by the employers' spokesman was that this method of payment was in lieu of an advance in wages. It


is not fair now to use that as an instrument for denying applicants the right to benefit.
Many of these schemes are not really holidays with pay. Here is another example. In one large area—this applies to miners—the bonus is paid to trade unionists only for attendance at work. It is agreed that the bonus payment should be made at the last pay day in July. The cost is charged to the ascertainments. The payment coincides with the holiday period, and, in my view, when the Minister frames the regulations, he should bear this in mind, and the persons who apply for benefit should not be affected in respect of the payments they receive during the last week in July. When insured contributors have been on short time for weeks or months prior to the holiday they may be suddenly put on full time a week or two before the holiday. I hope the Minister will frame the regulations in such a way as to provide for those cases. I hope there is to be no national uniformity in the drawing up of these regulations. Just as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) contrasted the position in London with that on the Clyde, so a contrast could be drawn in respect of areas like the North-East Coast, North Staffordshire and Lancashire. If the Minister is to be fair to the court of referees, who will have the difficulty of interpreting these regulations in the light of local circumstances, it will be necessary for him to take into account the whole background and the historical development of the areas. Otherwise these regulations are bound to cause a good deal of friction and misunderstanding.
The next point with which I want to deal is in connection with training. In the Ministry of Labour Gazette for January, I find that in the iron and steel trades there were unemployed at that time 24.5 per cent; in the tinplate industry, 37.5 per cent.; in engineering, despite rearmament, 6.9 per cent.; in shipbuilding, 22.5 per cent.; in the boot and shoe industry, 10.9 per cent.; in the pottery industry, 23 per cent.; and in the building industry, 18.6 per cent. Is it intended that training should take place for each of these industries? I suggest that it is most unfair to buoy up the hearts of young men to look forward to training, and to give of their best to it, when we know that in many cases we are building

up false hopes while these percentages exist. I hope that no pressure will be brought to bear on these young men in any way, and I was pleased when the Minister stated definitely to-day that as far as he was concerned there would be no pressure on any young man invited to accept this training. I want to ask him also to give an undertaking that no official acting on behalf of the Ministry will exercise any pressure.
Having said that, I want to contrast our position with that in New Zealand.. There is no difficulty there about training.. The trade unions negotiate with the Government in carrying out training, and the reason there is such a great contrast is that in New Zealand, where they have a people's Government, there is no fear of the effects of training on those who are already in industry. In this country, especially if training is carried too far, this is what happens. All the professions are organised to defend their own interests. I am not finding any fault with that, I think it is a good principle. We find that people in the professional organisations are well catered for, and their interests well defended. But if training is carried too far it is the men, and particularly the young men who have given six to eight years in equipping themselves manually and technically to become fully qualified craftsmen, who are affected. After all that effort, in many cases after the sacrifices made by their parents, at the end of the 26 weeks' period they see on the horizon the means test. One can fully understand the suspicion when proposals of this kind are made. I ask the Minister to reconsider the question of the means test, and to consider whether the time had not now arrived when it should be abolished.
I want to join with the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) and the hon. Member for Gorbals in reminding the Minister of the unanimous recommendation made in 1932 that black-coated workers should be included in the unemployment scheme. When the Minister is introducing a Bill enabling him to deal with a number of questions that he acknowledges should be dealt with, one would have thought that he would have included also the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission. My final point is in connection with Clause 11, which states that the Minister may, with


the consent of the Treasury, make reciprocal arrangements with the Ministry of Labour for Northern Ireland. Can it be stated what is the state of finance in regard to Northern Ireland? Is it a fact that this country has had to finance unemployment insurance there? If it is right to make reciprocal arrangements for Northern Ireland, surely the principle is equally correct that we should make reciprocal arrangements with Southern Ireland? We all know the need for improving the relationship between the whole of Ireland and this country, and this would be one step forward to show that we will not differentiate in the treatment of Northern Ireland against Southern Ireland. Surely we should adopt reciprocal arrangements covering the whole of Ireland in order to improve the relations with this country.

7.13 p.m.

Sir Arnold Wilson: I want to add to the plea put forward by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) that the views of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) as regards holidays may receive indulgent consideration from the Minister. I listened with great interest to the plea of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) that there should be an inquiry, and I am confident that such an inquiry, if it could be made reasonably comprehensive, would be in all respects satisfactory. But I do not see any reason why the trade unions should not endeavour to make some inquiry themselves. I would not be surprised if it was proved that one trainee in three was to be found in the ranks of the trade unions. There are about six million trade unionists and 18 million employed persons. I fancy that at least 30,000, and possibly 50,000, of these men are by this time in the trade unions. I have met a great many of them, good craftsmen, coming in as improvers after their training, and gradually working up. I wish the trade unions would make their own inquiries; and if they cannot do so, I hope the Minister will do so. I welcome the extension of the training from 16 to 18 years, but I hope the Minister will agree that it is desirable to have boys of 16 to 18 at a limited number of centres, and not at all 14 centres, for I am not sure that it is possible at some centres to do justice to such boys. I fully recognize

that the period from 16 to 18 years is the apprenticeship period, and I would like boys of 16 to 18 to spend as much as nine months in training, if need be, instead of merely six months.
At the present time, the Ministry of Labour are training craftsmen. In my constituency, at Letchworth and elsewhere, they are giving a clear nine months training, and they produce men who are taken on, after training, at the Government aircraft factory at Farnborough, at fully skilled men's rates of wages. Last week, at Letchworth I saw ex-colliers, youths who had been out of the pits for some time, doing delicate instrument-making, and doing it very well. I listened to the lectures, which were difficult to follow, and the sort of lectures that are given to boys of 18 and 19 at a public school. They were followed intelligently. I looked at the notebooks of a dozen men; they were well-written, well-spelt, and well-phrased. The pressure to which an hon. Member referred, if it has been applied, has been applied to very good purpose, for clearly they have got the pick of those who are available, and they are making very good use of them. If the time is extended, it will be possible to give youths of 16 better training than is now possible. At the present time, at the half-dozen centres I have visited during the year, the placings have been from 90 to 100 per cent., and the various inquiries that were made in a sporadic manner by the Minister a year or two ago indicated that something like 60 per cent. were in the same job a year later, and that nearly 80 per cent. were in the same trade after a year.
The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) inquired what were the trades. I have watched men learning oxy-acetylene-welding and electrical-welding. They leave and go straight on to 1s. 3d., for the most part; a few go on to 1s., and within four weeks they are on is. 3d. There are men learning carpentry, which is a full six months' course, and there is room for them; instrument-making and draftsmanship and metal-beating. For a certain type of man who is not capable of heavy trades, there is hairdressing and glass bending and armature winding, which is delicate; bricklaying and bricklayer's labourer, fitting and general garage hands. I do not think the hon. Member or the Minister need fear in this connection coming somewhat closer to some of the trade unions. That is something


which I should welcome. I have watched the centres grow during the past five years. One of the weakest features of the Spens Report is the failure of that report to realise that in these training centres, through which 20,000 men are passing, there is the very best form of adult education yet developed. They are the type of men who are not able to take advantage of the technical schools, for various reasons, and who will not go to the continuation schools, for various reasons. The instructors are all ex-foremen. The men are put through the shops, clocked on and clocked off; they are taught office routine and management; they have to go to the store to get their stuff on indent and account for it; everything is done on sound lines, and I do not think anybody need fear the result of a careful and scientific inquiry.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the hon. Member say that under this system of training they can produce draftsmen and scentific instrument-makers in nine months?

Sir A. Wilson: No, I do not suggest that. They are men who are capable of being taken on and earning improvers' wages from the very beginning. They are sufficiently good to be welcome junior members of any workshop. That is all one could ask and all that one would wish. There is one point that I put to the Minister. There are 40,000 men every year passing through vocational training centres and Ministry of Labour training centres. They are employed in handling tools in factories or in doing some form of work. They are not at present covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act or by any scheme under Section 31 of that Act. There are 135,000 men in the Government dockyards working as Government employés, who are, of course, covered by a contracting-out scheme under Section 31. Although these men are employed, clocking in and out, under workshop discipline, they are not eligible for compensation, except purely ex gratia payments, under no particular scheme, by the Treasury. I should much prefer to see a statutory scheme, and I should like the Minister to take power to bring in a statutory scheme and to make regulations for compensation to persons who may be injured in the course of their employment while undergoing training by the Ministry of Labour. They

are doing a great deal of Government work, such as the making of spare parts. Not long ago, a man was killed by the explosion of a cylinder, a pure accident, and I understand that the Treasury paid compensation to his dependants.
But if we are to extend the training, I feel sure that everybody would prefer that the Minister should bring in a scheme. Clearly he cannot simply say that he will extend to them the contracting-out scheme of Government employés, because it is extremely hard to know what are their normal wages. There must be a general schedule, and I should have no difficulty in giving the Minister, at 24 hours' notice, half a dozen model schedules which would give a general indication as to what compensation should be paid. There should be some provision for regulating the circumstances in which an injured youth should be given compensation and rehabilitated if he suffers injury in the course of his employment. It is the responsibility of the Minister—a responsibility that is admirably fulfilledto— take these boys and to say, "You will do best as a bricklayer—you are likely to be a good carpenter—you have good hands, it is worth your while to try as an instrument maker—you will do best if you go into panel-beating or oxy-acetylene welding." Each of these trades has a certain risk attached to it—

Mr. Kirkwood: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but there is all the difference in the world between welding and panel-beating. Panel-beating is a natural art. There is no comparison whatever between the two. It takes a man years and years to become proficient as a panel-beater.

Sir A. Wilson: I am quite aware of that fact, but I have mentioned panel-beating as a contrast to oxy-acetylene welding. They are as different as chalk from cheese. A man is kept busy for four or five years learning the art of panel-beating. It is true that there is no such thing as unskilled labour. All work has its art, and unskilled labour, such as it is—and it is a technical term—is becoming less and less in demand. Organised training under the Ministry of Labour, away from the man's home, is desirable and inevitable. I would like to quote a few figures in case some hon. Members may not be aware of them.


There is some talk about people being compelled to go to these centres and of there being over-persuasion. Twenty thousand persons went to courses last year, and 16,000 completed the courses. The 4,000 who failed to complete the courses were not penalised for not doing so; they simply went home for one reason or another. I believe that 300 or 400 were investigated for the purpose of trying to find out why they did not complete the courses. Some went to join the Armed Forces of the Crown—God bless them. A few went back for reasons of ill health; and fewer still for misconduct—a negligible number, and although I will not say from what district they came, they were all from one district.
The remainder went home for two main reasons. First, because of trouble at home—the young married man felt that he could not leave his wife any longer, and the wife begged him to return, and perhaps over-persuaded him. There was no ill-feeling on the part of the management of the centre; they said, "It is a pity, but if you must go, you must"; and they allowed him to go. Some of these young men left after three months' or four months' training. Secondly, a certain number said that they did not like being at the centres, and preferred to go back to the very distant part of the United Kingdom from which they came, and to stay there. But the great majority, after the first fortnight, settled down to do a good job of work. My son treasures at home a coin cabinet, not an easy thing to make, made by an ex-collier, a boy who had never before handled tools. It is a pretty good piece of work. I have seen many such pieces of work done by youths at these centres. Hon. Members opposite may rest assured that if they will go to these centres and see for themselves, any apprehensions which they may have will be allayed. I want to see this training extended, but I think that if it is to be extended, there ought to be some provision with regard to accidents, other than these ex gratia payments by the Treasury, which are in all ways rather unsatisfactory. For the rest, I welcome the Bill, and I hope that it will not be long before it reaches the Statute Book.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: I want to emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for

Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) with regard to some scheme of compensation for boys in training centres. On Friday night last I had, at Pontefract, the parent of one of these boys to see me. He was proud of the work that the lad was doing, but he was very much perturbed about what would happen if the lad met with any accident, and I had to tell him that the matter was in the hands of the Treasury. That is not an entirely satisfactory position, and the sooner it is placed on a proper basis the better it will be for all concerned.
I rise to deal with one point only with regard to this Bill, and that is with the position as laid down in Clause 1. Since the principal Act was passed in 1920 I and others, over a period of years in different parts of the Yorkshire coalfield, have had to attend courts of referees to try and deal with the position with regard to holidays. The position has never been entirely satisfactory, although we have established what are regarded as customary holidays, and the men have automatically regarded that as being the law on the point. We have had another development since then. We have had for the first time in the long history of the mining industry, a so-called holidays-with-pay agreement in each district. I say "so-called," because it is far from being an ideal scheme, and when the Minister boasts about, or rather expresses admiration at, the fact that we have now more than 9,000,000 wage earners covered in some shape or form with regard to holidays with pay, he had better remember that, so far as the coalfields are concerned, we do not regard these holidays as being holidays with pay at all. They are nothing more nor less than bonuses for good time worked.
Last year we had half a week's holiday with pay, and when the men had the three days' holiday application was made to the court of referees for unemployment pay. Of course, the case had to go before the Umpire, who, so far as Yorkshire went, declared definitely that if a workman at any colliery received payment from the colliery company for the three days' holiday, that person could not receive unemployment insurance pay. While we were not surprised at the decision, we were quite entitled to make the application and to test it out in accordance with the machinery laid down in the Act


of Parliament. Having had that decision, there arose the question of the men who had a holiday without pay, and I had the privilege of meeting the Umpire, on behalf of most of the collieries in Yorkshire, to deal with the application for unemployment insurance pay for those men who had holidays, but received nothing. We had not only a very interesting but a prolonged argument, and I think I am right in saying that we succeeded in establishing our claim to benefit. The Umpire allowed the appeal in our favour. Under this Bill we are going to say to that class of workman, "You will get nothing, whether you receive anything from the colliery company or not." That is my reading of Clause 1, and if I am not right, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear.
I want to bring out the kind of case that receives no pay when the general body of workmen receive their holiday with pay. First, you have what may be termed the bad timekeeper. It is very easy to say that a man is not a good workman, but one has to remember that the mining industry is a fairly hard industry, and all of us who have spent years underground know that there are occasions when one does not feel ill, but when one does not feel quite fit enough to get up to work at five in the morning, and when one feels that one wants a "late day," as we call it. If you have more than a given number of "late days" in a given month, you lose so much of your £3 holiday money, with the result that if you have lost so many days for so many months, and the time comes when the general body of men get their holiday week, you are out of work, but you get nothing. I want the Minister to remember that case.
There are two other kinds of cases which ought to be quoted. If a man leaves one pit during the year and goes to work at another pit, that does not disqualify him for a holiday with pay, because he is within the same county, but in these days we have a good deal of industrial transference. We have a number of people who go from one county to another in the hope of getting a job. We have, for example, a number of men who will come from Durham into Yorkshire on the off chance of getting a job, when they see in the paper that the Doncaster pits are working more regularly. We have men coming out of

the Nottinghamshire or Derbyshire coal-field into Yorkshire, and if these men have not worked the requisite time in the county, then, when the holiday week comes, they are out of work and get nothing. I think that is a penalty which those men ought not to have to carry. Another case that I have in mind is a case that I had to put before the umpire, of a man who had been discharged from the Regular Army. He had come back to work in the coalfield and had started work, but because he had not worked sufficiently long, when the holiday week came he was out of work and got nothing. I contend that these men who receive nothing are not really on holiday, but are out of work because the others are out of work.
If the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) had been in the House, I would have answered his query about what a holiday is. I never had the slightest difficulty in defining what a holiday was. If I did not want to go to the pit because I did not feel well enough, I did not regard that as a holiday, but as a "late day." If I had a day examining the pit for the workmen, the lads used to say that that was a "bobby's job." Work is so hard in the pit that if you had a day's work underground lighter than you usually had, the men would say, "Hallo, another money-for-nowt job." What I meant by a holiday was when I was able to stop away from the pit and stay at home or go away with something in my pocket, and enjoy myself. It needed no question of fine definition, and I contend that these men who have to be out of work when the other people are making holiday are not really holidaying, but are out of work because the others are out of work.
My next point is on the question of availability. That had to be argued before the umpire, and I contended then, and I contend now, that if anybody is available for work, it is those men who are out of work without any money. They are not only able, but they are willing and anxious to get work. I had to quote this case. During crisis week last autumn, which happened to coincide with the time when a number of our pits were having their three days' holiday, a good many men who had drawn their 30s. had gone away, but the men who drew nothing stopped at home. There came a call from the local authority for labour to start dig-


ging trenches and other A.R.P. work. Who were more available than those men who had received nothing? They were available, and they were ready, and willing, and anxious to do it. Here we have, in Clause 1, a declaration that
an insured contributor shall not be deemed to be unemployed … on any day on which he is on holiday.
It goes on to say that the Minister shall have power to make regulations, among other things, as to whether an insured contributor is or is not to be deemed to be on holiday. Does that give the Minister power, in an industry where there is a holiday-with-pay agreement, with certain penalty clauses where employés can be out of work in the holiday week, but draw nothing, to make regulations so as to certify either that those persons are or are not on holiday within the meaning of the Act? If the Minister will make that clear, a good many of my hon. Friends and I will be very much obliged. These very vexed questions of holidays with pay and of unemployment insurance are far from being settled when we have passed this Bill into law. I will conclude by saying that there are in the Bill one or two other things of a minor character which, personally, I welcome.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I should like to support what was said earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) about the form of this Bill. It seems to me that in this Bill we have reached the high water mark of government by regulation. I did not hear his speech, but I know that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) excused this on the ground that it was necessary to have flexibility, but it would take a great deal of flexibility to justify a Bill being presented in this form. If one looks through the first two or three Clauses of the Bill, a number of questions are bound to present themselves, to which the Bill contains no answer, and it is impossible to tell what shape ultimately these regulations will take. May I give an example or two? The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) drew attention to certain words in Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 and to paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2), which lays it down that
the Minister may make regulations for determining … whether an insured contributor … is or is not to be deemed to be on holiday for the purposes of the principal Act.

It is impossible to know what are holidays or what will be deemed to be periods of unemployment. We have not the facts to know what the effect of the Bill will be in that respect.
To take another example, there is Subsection (3), which deals with the question of contributions that may be made for the purpose of national health insurance and widows', orphans', and old age contributory pensions. It is obvious that where you have a week in respect of which payment is made, you have to decide whether contributions shall be payable in respect of that week, and surely it would be a very simple thing to lay down a principle, one way or another, in the Bill so that we should know what the prospect is. But nobody can tell, from looking at the Sub-section, whether or not it is the intention of the Government that these contributions shall be made in respect of a holiday week. I think that is a most unsatisfactory way in which to present legislation to this House.
The whole criticism of these early Clauses of the Bill is that the House does not and cannot know what it is doing when it gives the Bill a Second Reading. This goes much farther than any question of mere flexibility. It is simply another example of the practice, of which we have had so many examples from the Department in recent years, of the deliberate evasion, by this method, of Parliamentary control. It is repeating in fact the practice that we had on the Unemployment Bill in 1934. I remember that during the three years from 1931 to 1934 the burning question in politics was the means test, and every Member for an industrial constituency had an enormous post-bag on that subject alone during those years. We were all waiting to express our views; we hoped to bring about considerable changes but when the Bill came before the House we found that we were powerless to reshape the administration of the means test, because everything was to be done by regulation and not by Statute. In a minor form that procedure is being repeated in this Bill. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question about the date of the regulations. It is stated in Clause 1 (6):
This Section shall come into operation on the fifth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine.


It follows that the regulations will have to be made some time before then. Is it intended that these regulations shall be made and shall be open to the examination of the House before we rise for the Recess at the end of July, or will they be made, and possibly brought into operation, before the House has had an opportunity of seeing them? We ought to have some information on this point. Unless we get an undertaking upon it, the regulations may come into force before there is any opportunity of examination by this House.
I would also like a definite statement on the Parliamentary procedure to be adopted with regard to these regulations. As hon. Members know, there are several forms of procedure which can be adopted. There is the procedure which was adopted under the Unemployment Act, 1934, which means that the regulations must have the affirmative assent of both Houses. There is the more common procedure under which the regulations must be laid upon the Table and can be annulled, if the House so wishes, within 21 days of being laid. Nothing is said in the Bill about the procedure to be adopted in this case. True, Clause 17 provides:
This Act may be cited as the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1939, and this Act and the Unemployment Insurance Acts of 1935 to 1938, shall be construed as one.
Is it the opinion of the Ministry that that Clause imports into this Measure the same procedure as that contained in Sections 104 and 105 of the 1935 Act? If that be so, then, of course, the regulations will be laid and there will be 21 days within which a Prayer for their annulment can be moved. Personally, I would rather see the Government under the obligation to place the regulations before the House and get the affirmative assent of the House. There is a great difference between regulations which are brought in at a reasonable hour and form part of the Government business and the moving of a Prayer, probably in the small hours of the morning, when it is difficult to get the attention of the House. But whichever procedure may be adopted, this still means the same derogation from the authority of Parliament as that which was borne in upon the House on the two occasions when we discussed the regulations governing the U.A.B. means test.
The feature of all these regulations is that although the House can accept or

reject them as a whole, it is powerless to alter a word or comma of them. It often happens that hon. Members in all parts of the House are reluctant to reject a whole set of regulations or a whole order, because the regulations or the order may contain many things of which they approve. Yet there are often details to which Members take strong exception, but they are unable to give any effect to their objection because no Amendment can be moved. Of course when we are dealing with comparatively small and petty matters like minor traffic regulations, it would be impossible as a matter of convenience, for this House to shape and draft them all. But I think that in matters of this importance intimately affecting the livelihood of many thousands of people, we ought to have a different procedure on regulations of this kind, and it ought to be possible for the House to amend them.
This Bill, the Minister said, is designed to carry out the recommendations of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee. The principal change intended is that unpaid holidays shall not count as waiting days. I am not sure that I do not regard that provision with a certain amount of alarm. In my constituency the principal industry is the jute industry in which, unfortunately, wages are very low. We are accustomed to have the annual public holiday in Dundee at the end of July. We have a week's holiday then, and as yet we have no arrangements for holidays with pay. That means that a man who is not taken back at the end of the week's holiday—as sometimes happens—will have to commence his waiting days then. That is to say, from the time he leaves work until he is in a position to draw benefit, there will be an interval of 10 days. That is a considerable hardship. I know that the Beveridge Committee specifically dealt with this point in their report in which they say:
In so far as holidays with loss of wages are, for poorly paid workpeople, a hardship rather than a means of recreation, the cases of hardship will be reduced in proportion as paid holidays become general.
That is so, but it seems very cold comfort to people who find that they have the long period of 10 days to wait, to be told that gradually this thing will iron itself out as arrangements for holidays with pay become more general. The Minister said that we had to draw a distinction between


a period of holiday and a period of unemployment. It often happens that where there is a low-wage industry, where it is not possible for people to put aside much from their wages, and where there is also a holiday week without pay, there is really no distinction between a week's holiday and a week's unemployment. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) regretted that the Bill was not confined to its first three Clauses and that various other matters had been tacked on to its main provisions. I regard the Bill rather differently. It is a kind of miscellaneous provisions Bill in which all the various reforms to which the Ministry has been converted in the last year or two have been embodied. That being so, I am rather surprised at one or two omissions. My hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) have already referred to the omission of any increase in the salary limit and any provisions for bringing in black-coated workers.
I may remind the Parliamentary Secretary of another point which I have endeavoured to raise on other occasions in this House. Personally, I regret the absence of any enlargement of the right of appeal of men who are struck off benefit by courts of referees. At present there is no right of appeal from decisions of the court of referees where the court is unanimous and the chairman refuses leave to appeal. True, if the applicant is a member of an association of employed persons, they can appeal on his behalf. I know that hon. Members above the Gangway do not agree with me in this, but it has always seemed to me an in-defensible provision in our law that we should give a right of appeal to one section of contributors to the fund which we deny to other sections of contributors to the fund. I wish that some provision had been included in the Bill whereby men refused benefit and refused leave to appeal by the court of referees, could apply, at any rate in writing, to the umpire for leave to appeal and also a provision giving the umpire power to grant leave.
There is one other comparatively minor matter, but one to which considerable importance attaches, and which I wish had been dealt with in the Bill. That is the position of pregnant women who are within a week or two of childbirth

and are unemployed and have to go to the Employment Exchange. If they can get a doctor's certificate to the effect that they are within three or four weeks of childbirth, it ought to be possible to absolve them from the necessity of attendance at the exchange. All hon. Members who represent constituencies where there is heavy unemployment know that this is a genuine grievance, and I hope it will be possible to deal with it before we are finished with this Bill. Finally, I would refer to another matter arising out of the Statutory Committee's report. In paragraph 23 the committee say:
Nor have we failed to consider the suggestion that formal provision of such an income might be made, in part at least, for everybody from the Unemployment Fund, that is to say, that Unemployment Insurance might become Unemployment and Holiday Insurance. This suggestion, in our view, is wrong in principle.
They go on to give their reasons and conclude with this sentence:
Unemployment insurance should be confined to unemployment.
The committee, of course, has to work within certain limits and, having regard to the present structure of unemployment insurance, it cannot be doubted that their reasoning is correct. But this is one of the misfortunes which arises from our system of having our Insurance Fund in two categories, one for health and the other for unemployment. It is, of course, a very much larger question than any dealt with in the Bill, but I would conclude by expressing the hope that the Government will consider the consolidation of the social services in the near future and whether the time has not come to have an all-in insurance scheme, embracing a much larger section of the population than is now included. It would be possible to expand such a scheme, as time went on, to take in one social service after another, and I think it is on those lines that we are most likely to advance in future years.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Viant: I think all who listened to the appeal of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) respecting pregnant women having to attend at Employment Exchanges would desire to reinforce that appeal, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take note of that feeling and, if possible, give a favourable reply about it this evening. It may be that it is


a matter for the Committee stage, but in any case if that appeal can be met I am sure the concession will be appreciated throughout the country. I have listened to the bulk of this Debate and have heard various views expressed regarding the apprehensions which are prevalent as to how Clause 1 is likely to operate. I would follow that up by submitting to the Parliamentary Secretary concrete illustrations of what will happen on the Thursday night preceding Good Friday. For years I have been associated with the building industry, in which labour is in the main casual and employment intermittent. It is a common experience on the day preceding an ordinary Bank Holiday or the Christmas or Easter holidays for a large number of men to be dismissed. A number will undoubtedly be dismissed on the Thursday preceding Good Friday. The probability is that some of them will have been in employment for only a week or a couple of weeks, and according to my reading of Clause 1 they will be unable to get unemployment benefit for the Friday, Saturday and Monday. As most of the firms lock their employés out until the Wednesday morning they will miss at least four days pay. On Wednesday morning they will sign at the Employment Exchange, but then comes in the three days waiting period.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us how the Clause will affect men in that position. I am of the opinion that they will be deprived of pay over the holidays and, with the three days' waiting period, it will mean they will get nothing for that week. The same thing will occur at Christmas, and it is also the common practice for men to be shut out on every Bank Holiday and the day following. The Minister will probably say that he is going to draw up Regulations to deal with these contingencies. Apprehensions have already been expressed about the procedure of laying Regulations upon the table. Most of us feel that we shall not have an adequate opportunity of discussing them because it is impossible to discuss Regulations after 11 o'clock at night. I hope the House will be given a reply this evening which will remove our justifiable apprehensions and that we shall be given adequate facilities to review the Regulations and, if necessary, to oppose them if they do not deal leniently and not harshly

with those who will be affected by the Bill.
There are many Clauses in the Bill which most of us welcome, but we feel perturbed about the one dealing with the Regulations. We welcome Clause 3, which provides for the continuous period of employment being extended from 10 to 12 weeks. The extension of dependants' benefits is also welcomed, but we rather wish that the manner in which the assessments are to be arrived at by the Umpire was more generous than it is, because instance after instance can be quoted to show that nothing in the nature of justice or equity obtains as between one case and another. There seems to be a hard-and-fast rule and every consideration of justice and equity goes by the board. Each case is not considered on its merits, and until a different spirit prevails justice and equity will not be done. We are apprehensive about the generosity which appears to be expressed in the new Clause. While it appears generous on the surface, generosity would seem to be ruled out in its administration.
I pass to Clause 8. The hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) extolled the benefits of the present training system, and I feel sure that quite a number of Members must have been convinced that six months' training could turn a casual labourer into a mechanic. We were told that instrument makers are being trained in that way. I know of no more complicated work than the instrument maker's, and many who have served an apprenticeship of seven years have found that even after that they have had to go as improvers in order to secure the finesse which is required in such a trade. While the Minister was speaking I asked him whether trade unions had been approached in regard to the proposals to train lads between 16 and 18 years of age. I am all for training. Training is quite a good thing. Even if a man does not follow the occupation for which he has been trained he is none the less a better citizen for it. He is able to appreciate craftsmanship and art.
The point I am making is, What does the Minister expect from such short periods of training? I am a mechanic myself. My apprenticeship lasted for seven years, and at the end of it I was


still painfully aware of my shortcomings. We are to take these young lads and in six months try to teach them the use of tools either in carpentry, bricklaying or some section of the engineering trade. The plea is made that it will keep them from going into blind-alley occupations, but six months' training will not accomplish that. If training is worth while why not get into touch with the industrial unions and endeavour to revive the apprenticeship system? By giving the lads six months' training only and then turning them out we are going to sour them, and they will still go into blind-alley occupations. Already we have been taking them into training centres for six or nine months' training in carpentering and in bricklaying. On coming, out from the training centres they have probably found employment with a speculative builder at 10d. an hour, whereas the ordinary craftsman's rate is 1s. 8d. an hour. Probably they are being concentrated on the use of the hammer and the saw, fit for nothing else. For three or four months their employers will probably have exploited them in every sense of the word, and then they have been turned adrift and have probably gone back to their home towns to lapse into casual employment as labourers and all the value of that training has been lost.
If training is worth while let us give them an adequate training. The Bill suggests taking them in at the age of 16, that is, the apprenticeship age. Let us have a proper scheme and make apprentices of them, so that they will be taught the practical side and the technical side. Let them receive their training in the workshop and attend the evening classes. The trade unions have often been criticised harshly in this House by people who really do not understand their position because they have not been prepared to take into the unions the men who have six or nine months' training. During the period I was out of this House, 1931–35, I went back to my trade. In some places, when they found out who I was, I was dismissed. We on this side are supposed to preach the class war, but some of the employers practise it with a vengeance. Fortunately, I soon regained my position and became responsible to a West-End firm for the employment and selection of men. Two or three of these trainees were sent to me and I tried them

out. They were all right, where it was simply a question of using a hammer and saw on a rough kind of work. No trade union, however, could afford to take these men into its ranks. When employers apply to trade unions for mechanics, they expect the union to supply mechanics capable of doing work in keeping with the trade. The kind of men who are being trained cannot be expected to meet with these requirements.
I appeal to the Minister to appreciate what is happening to-day and to let us have men thoroughly trained so that the trade unions will be able to take them into their membership. What is more important, if these men receive thorough training, not only are they improved as craftsmen, but improved in their spirit of independence and helped to become the men we desire as thorough-going citizens. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the proposals for taking lads at the age of 16 and giving them six or nine months training. If you are going to train them at all, give them a thorough training, and you can then rest assured that you will get the support of the employers and the trade unions. In the building industry, with which I have been associated all my life, we have in London and in many towns throughout the country a first-class apprenticeship system worked by the operatives and the employers. A real apprenticeship system will meet with their approbation and obtain their co-operation. Therefore, I hope we shall hear that these channels are to be explored and that, in the spirit of co-operation, we shall embark on a system of training which will revive the spirit of craftsmanship and remove the misrepresentations that are brought against the trade unions because they are not prepared to take into their ranks men who have not had a proper training.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: The hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) dealt with training centres and, among other trades, mentioned hairdressing. A strong objection is taken in the hairdressing profession to the training system. That is one reason for the registration Bill which was submitted to-day for the protection of the tonsorial artists. We do not object to training, but care must be exercised not to train lads for occupations where the prospects of continuous employment is not very good. We


ought to know something about the regulations with respect to training. The statutory committee have on several occasions submitted certain recommendations which were subsequently translated into legislation. There was a recommendation for the inclusion of agricultural workers, a very desirable section, and further proposals were made to improve the benefits for that section. Then there was a recommendation for the inclusion of gamekeepers, horse-keepers, etc. We do not object to these workers being included.
I think that every worker ought to be ensured for unemployment, but I cannot understand why one class that was recommended for inclusion long before the game-keepers and agricultural workers still remains outside. I refer to the non-manual workers. The Statutory Committee gave a good deal of consideration to that question. They sat for no fewer than 11 days taking evidence from employers' and workers' representatives. I had the honour to give evidence before the Committee on behalf of large sections employed in the distributive trades, men who are in and out, at times earning over £250 a year, and at other times earning less, with the result that when they find themselves unemployed they are very often not entitled to benefit. I have known some hard cases of men who, as the result of amalgamation of firms, were thrown out of employment after 20 or 30 years, and there was no unemployment benefit for them. Some of them had houses heavily mortgaged, of which they had to dispose, and within a short time all their savings had gone and they were driven to ask for relief from public assistance.
The Statutory Committee reported that the evidence was in favour of the extension of unemployment insurance above the £250 limit. That evidence came from journalists, architects, correctors of the Press, textile managers, coke oven managers, colliery under-managers, navigating officers, marine engineers, chemists, shop assistants, actors, musicians, theatrical employés, and life insurance workers. The distinction between the non-manual and manual worker is, as the Committee pointed out, very unreal. For instance, a typist who strikes the keys of a typewriter is held to be a non-manual worker, while the compositor who strikes the keys of a linotype machine is held to be a manual worker. The Committee

came to the conclusion, as the Royal Commission of 1932 did, that the existing remuneration limit for non-manual workers was unsuitable and ought to be raised. The Committee recommended raising it to £400, although admitting it was lower than the sum urged by witnesses representing the workers.
The Committee concluded that by raising the sum to £400 it would bring in about 400,000 persons, and finally—and this is the important thing—the Committee stated that the inclusion of these persons would strengthen rather than weaken the Unemployment Fund. If that be the finding of the Statutory Committee, why in the name of common sense have the Government not yet brought in the non-manual workers? I know managers of distributive stores and of branch shops of multiple firms who are in and out; they are like the unfortunate seasonal workers who pay contributions for a time, but when the need arises they are not entitled to benefit. I hope that at long last the Government will see their way to improve the non-manual workers in unemployment insurance.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: When the Minister concluded his speech he patted himself on the back, as is his custom, by saying that he invited the House to become an agent in a further measure of reform. I do not accept this Bill at all in any real sense as a reform, although there are one or two points that can be welcomed. This is actually a Bill designed to take advantage of reforms and to save money for the Unemployment Fund. Reference has been made to the character of Clause 1 and to doubts that exist as to the character of the regulations that may be drawn up. I hazard the prophecy that when the regulations are drawn up they will be found to be, for many people, holidays without pay as distinct from holidays with pay.
I want to take a particular case. An hon. Member who spoke from this side referred to the situation of the miners and said that holidays with pay were only a bonus to the miners for their constant appearance during the year at the mines. That is not putting the matter fully in the sense of what is happening. I represent a mining constituency and I know that the miners of this country are paying for that bonus which they get at holiday


time. All this so-called holiday with pay goes into the ascertainment and therefore the miner is actually contributing week by week and month by month for his holiday pay. I would ask the Minister to consider this. No matter what any of us may say or know to the contrary, I am certain that the Minister of Labour would make the claim to be an honest man. The miners were persuaded or forced to come into National Health Insurance, and week by week they have to contribute their quota for benefit when they are unemployed.
In the past when they have been laid off during the so-called holidays—which have not been holidays at all—they have been enabled, because of the contributions they have made and because they were insured at that period, to make a claim at the Employment Exchanges, and in certain circumstances were able to obtain unemployment benefit. The miners have now been persuaded to participate in a new reform, in a scheme for so-called holidays with pay. They contribute week by week towards the fund that provides the money for those holidays with pay, but they have already been providing the money for insurance benefit when they are out of work; so, the Minister takes advantage of the fact that the miners are now contributing towards the holidays-with-pay fund to deprive them of their rights under the insurance scheme. That is not a reform; that is a swindle. Unless this House can get an opportunity of discussing and considering and altering, where necessary, any Regulations that may be prepared between now and October, that swindle will be perpetrated on a large scale throughout this country, and many people will suffer as a consequence. I want to make the demand in connection with this Clause that, in view of the serious character of this proposal, no attempt should be made to force a situation where the Regulations must be accepted or rejected as a whole. On this occasion, because of their serious character and their wide ramifications, these Regulations should be brought before this House for discussion and alteration wherever that may be necessary.
I was going to speak at some length on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), who was talking on a subject of which he appeared to

be completely ignorant. The matter has been dealt with however, very well, by the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant). These training centres are all so much humbug and the whole question comes down to one of apprenticeship. Six months at the training centres may produce improvers, but that procoess tends to destroy the apprenticeship system and to intensify the problem that we seek to solve. Improvers provide cheap labour for employers. Instead of employing a tradesman the employer can, for some of the more rough and ready operations, employ the improver at low wages. This House should not approve this makeshift effort to overcome a serious problem. Let the Minister come to an understanding with the trade unions and ensure that these lads shall be employed in industry in such a way that they will understand the industry, be properly trained, and get trade union rates of wages. That is the only real solution for the problem.
Another point I wish to touch upon is the extension of benefit to dependants. There is an anomaly in connection with this question of dependants to which it is worth while making a reference. It is the married man, the insured person, who presumably has dependants such as wife, sisters, and all the rest of it, but we have a situation very often where the insured person is a spinster. She may be earning a wage that maintains a home. There are districts in the country where more women than men are employed. I have a case in mind in which a sister goes out to work while a sister, whom she maintains, looks after the home. If she is unemployed, she gets unemployment benefit for herself, but there is no allowance for the one who has been dependent upon her. This new Clause deals with the husband as the insured person, and extends the benefit to those who are dependent upon him, but I would ask the Minister during the Committee stage to consider doing something for these other insured persons who are faced with very great difficulties when unemployment comes upon them.
I want to refer to a point regarding which I made an interjection during the Minister's speech. In cases in which an inquiry is to be held and an unemployed man has to attend, it is provided that no person shall be required, in obedience to such a summons, to go more than 10


miles from his place of residence unless his expenses are paid. Why 10 miles? Why any mileage at all? There are areas where the bus fare from one part of the district to another is double what it is in other areas, and, if mileage is taken as a basis, the man or woman who is travelling in one part of the country may be paying, say, 1s., while people travelling in another part of the country are paying 2s. I maintain that, wherever an unemployed man is invited to attend an inquiry, he should get whatever expenses are necessary for his attendance. We find, however, an attitude of the utmost contempt adopted towards these unemployed people. The idea seems to be that, if they live four, or five, or six miles away from a particular centre where an inquiry is going to take place, they are unemployed and, therefore, they can walk; and we very often find, in cases of this kind, men and women having to trudge mile after mile along bad roads, sometimes in bad weather, and having to suffer very much as a consequence. I maintain that, no matter how far or how near it may be, if their attendance at an inquiry is needed, their legitimate expenses should be met, and that this idea of mileage should be dispensed with altogether.
In the mining areas and in other country districts it is sometimes necessary to travel seven, eight or nine miles. In some of these cases you can only get a bus at a particular hour, and then, when you have got to your destination and finished with the inquiry, you may have an hour, or perhaps two hours, to wait before you can get a bus back. There is all that inconvenience to be considered. It may be necessary, when an unemployed man comes to an inquiry, that, as a result of his having to wait, he has to get something to eat. He has to spend money in food which could be used to good purpose at home if he had not had to attend the inquiry. It is a costly business having to buy food away from home, even if it is only tea and a bit of bread. I would like to see the mileage condition done away with and consideration shown towards unemployed men and women.
I have been to Employment Exchanges to see managers about the position of unemployed men who have to go considerable distances, and I have found that, if an unemployed man has to walk three miles to get to an Exchange, that

is supposed to be nothing at all. But many of these people who talk so lightly about the unemployed, when they have finished their own jobs, have a car waiting to take them wherever they want to go. People associated with the administration of the Employment Exchanges and the Unemployment Assistance Board talk in the most careless and unfeeling manner about the unemployed, as though it were nothing at all to walk two, three and four miles, it may be on the worst of roads and in the worst of weather. I must say that, despite the Minister's lavish praises for his own handiwork, I cannot express any admiration at all for this Bill. I consider that the one or two advantages which are associated with it are accompanied by very dangerous features, and that it is in fact a Bill to take advantage of the reform that is now developing in the direction of holidays with pay, to save money for the Unemployment Fund at the expense of those who are insured.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: It has been well said two or three times during the Debate that this Bill is legislation by regulation, and, of all forms of legislation, that is the worst. I have glanced through the Bill, and find as many references to regulations to be made by the Minister as there are Clauses in the Bill. We on this side realise the difficulties of finding a sound, clear, and concise definition of holidays, but there are other parts of the Bill where no regulations are needed, and where the necessary provisions ought to have been placed in the Bill itself. As regards Clause 1, much has been said, and much more could have been said, about the ill effect on the waiting period. I remember that not very long ago in this House we were talking about statutory holidays with pay, but I think that Clause 1 is a statutory Clause for holidays without pay, because it marks out certain days which have been paid for in the past and which now will no longer be paid for under the Unemployment Assistance Board. Those works which close down at Easter and Christmas do not close down for the benefit of the workers. Many of them close down for a longer period than the actual holiday, for the benefit of the owner of the works. On page 13 of their report, the committee say:
Even when a firm regularly declares a 'holiday' each year, e.g., by stopping for


all days from Christmas to New Year, or for a week or more in summer, this may be essentially a convenience to the firm (for stock-taking or repairs) and a time of distasteful idleness and loss of wages to the employees. To accept a unilateral declaration of a 'holiday' by the employer is to incur the risk of letting unemployment go without benefit.
If the Minister can make a regulation which will obviate this risk of genuine unemployment going without benefit, I am sure he will have the support of all Members of the House. Then there is the loss to the worker under Clause 1 which has been emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) and by many other Members, in connection with the waiting period. The worker is also debarred from counting those same days in his waiting period. If the works are closed for six days, and three of those are classified as holidays, and do not count as waiting days, it is possible for that worker to go the whole six days without getting any benefit. Something ought to be done in Committee to make Clause 1 less harsh for the worker. Clause 4 has been welcomed by practically every Member. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and others have criticised, time and again, the wickedness of excluding from benefit all dependants except the wife. Under the Clause, that is remedied.
With regard to Clause 8, I am not going over the ground so well covered by my hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) about apprenticeship. This country has turned out the finest craftsmen in the world. That was done on an apprenticeship basis. There is now a great shortage of craftsmen. It is due to the shortage of apprentices, and this nine months' training which is proposed is simply playing with the business. The Government ought to get down to a serious system of apprenticeship. Not only will they have to do that, but they will have to guarantee jobs for those men after the long years of apprenticeship. To-day, in the engineering world, men who have served seven years' apprenticeship will not go back to the industry. They are engaged as drivers and conductors on buses. These are regular jobs. They remember what happened after the War, when engineers were thrown out of work by thousands, and,

although they have been asked to go back, they will not do so. In Clause 9 mention is made of employers defaulting in connection with the stamping of cards. Where the workers have contributed their share for the stamps and the employers have failed to stamp the cards, the workers should be entitled to benefit just as though the cards had been stamped. Otherwise, the workers are penalised through the fault of the employer. I have had examples of that happening.
In connection with Clause 10, the hon. Member for West Fife has pointed out the disgrace of men having to travel 10 miles or more each way before they get any travelling expenses. I understand that, as the Minister said, this difference is the same as is mentioned in the National Health Insurance Act, but there is no reason why an injustice which is perpetrated under that Act should be repeated in this Bill. The worker may travel 18 miles in all, and receive no remuneration for travelling or subsistence. In the rural areas where I live it would be almost impossible for a man to travel that distance unless he had some expenses allowance. In some of those districts buses run only twice a week, and then the fare is 2s. return for a journey of nine miles each way. At times, it is impossible for the buses to get along, owing to the weather. It is manifestly unfair to expect a man to travel 18 miles without remuneration, especially a man who has been under the Unemployment Assistance Board. He has got low in health, and has hardly any clothing. The position is the same in regard to the sub-stations at the Employment Exchanges. I have had several complaints about men having to walk long distances to these sub-stations.
There is one great omission in this Bill. I had looked forward to something being done for those workers who are sometimes under the general scheme and sometimes under the agricultural scheme. They suffer a great hardship. In my district, where the coal-producing areas are idle in the summer time, the men turn to agricultural work, to limestone quarrying or to hay-making. If they put in so many weeks mining and so many weeks farming, they are not allowed to add together the stamps which they get under the general scheme and the stamps which they get under the agricultural scheme, and the result is that, although


they may have acquired enough stamps in the aggregate to entitle them to benefit under either of the schemes, they do not receive any benefit. I hope something will be done to enable men who have paid their contributions and whose employers have also paid theirs, to total up their stamps under the two schemes, so that they will be able to get benefit. Suggestions have been made from this side, and from the other side, too, that the Minister should take closely into consideration especially the matters dealt with in Clauses I and 10 and the matter of the dual kind of workers, agricultural and non-agricultural. I hope that by so doing he will make a better job of the unemployment benefit system.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Dunn: I want to make one or two observations with regard to this Bill, and to draw upon my own experience somewhat. During the last 15 months I have seen, particularly in my own constituency and my own miners' branch, a more lively interest in the matter of holidays with pay, and the question of how it was going to be treated in legislation, than in any other question. The people in my part of the world are very eager to see how the proposal is to be treated in this House. I have read the report of the committee, and I have a tremendous amount of sympathy with the criticism levelled against the Bill by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). I must also confess that I found my mind running very largely in the same direction as that of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I could not help reflecting, as he did, that when there was something to be given away, when there were huge subsidies to be handed out to industry—on this occasion it was to the shipping industry—when the bone was thrown into the centre of the House the dogs from every part were after it.

Mr. G. Griffiths: There was some meat on it.

Mr. Dunn: Indeed there was some meat on it, to the extent of £25,000,000 in the nature of subsidies to industry.

Mr. E. J. Williams: And no means test.

Mr. Dunn: And no means test whatever. This Bill not only deals with legislation for the unemployed, but Clauses 1, 2

and 3 deal with people in employment equally as much as with people who are not in employment. When it becomes a question of dealing with the people who are unemployed and part-time workers we do not find the same degree of charity and generosity exercised towards them as we found earlier to-day exercised towards industry. People in my division, and particularly in my own local miners' branch, whose meetings I attend from time to time, are more critical and more concerned with regard to the question of holidays with pay and how it is to be treated in subsequent legislation than they are with regard to many things which they discuss from time to time. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Sexton) that it is not merely a question of holidays with pay but rather of making provision for holidays without pay. Under past procedure, it has been possible, year in and year out, during holiday periods, and without any computation in respect of the wages system or wages agreement whatever, to make arrangements in various parts of the coalfield for workers to look forward to some measure of payment during such times.
As I understand Clause 1 of the Bill, unless some drastic alterations are made and some more humane regulations are laid down, workers will not be entitled either to claim, or to be paid, any benefits whatever from the unemployment scheme, and also no customary holidays. Not only Good Friday, Easter Monday, Whitsuntide Bank Holidays or Christmas time, but other holidays in the year, in many cases periods of ten days, will not in any way be entitled to be computed for the purposes of holiday payments. That is not the worst feature of the position. They will not be holidays which can be regarded as continuation days.
I am intrigued with regard to the effective saving of £400,000 a year. We in the mining industry who have an opportunity of examining from time to time the ascertainment schemes and the figures relating thereto realise that, taking only the month of January, over £26,000 is laid on one side or is a credit within the scheme for the purpose of holidays with pay. That, multiplied by 12, gives the amazing figure of approximately £300,000 for the year. I believe that the actual estimated figure is £360,000 for one year in one county. The right


hon. Gentleman was once Secretary for Mines and will know the workings of these schemes. We in the mining industry do not look upon this as holidays with pay at all. It is regarded in all districts as something which is taken from the workpeople week by week and month by month. There is a possibility that Clause 1 may not be nearly as watertight as it appears at the present time. It may be examined in the light of how far an effective arrangement may be made which will not make the holiday period coincide with the time when the money is actually paid over to the workpeople. In these circumstances I wonder how Clause 1 can be made effective.
The real point I want to put is this: Usually the sting of a Bill or a statement is to be found in the tail, but in this Bill the real sting to which we on this side of the House object very strongly is to be found in the fact that the Minister himself is really making an effective saving to the Fund at the expense of the wages ticket of the workers in every part of the country. The right hon. Gentleman may disagree with that. I wonder what will happen in some of the coalfields where agreements have been made and are in process of revision dealing with holidays with pay, to a man, for instance, suffering from a temporary period of illness in respect of which it may not be possible for him to secure even a doctor's certificate. How will he be affected by the proposed penalty clauses that the employers are seeking to insert in their agreements for holidays with pay? I have in mind workers particularly in the deep, hot mines of this country, the best type of people, those who are anxious and willing to make the most effective time they can at their work and industry. I will take the Doncaster coalfield as a case in point. The best statistics, before anything like this came along, have shown that the actual effective working time that a man could possibly put in was not more than an average of four days and a quarter per week per year.
In those circumstances, while the penalty clause applies it will really mean, taking the coalfields as a whole, that very few men will be entitled to receive holidays with pay at all. Assuming that the works shut down for a week or seven or eight days, as the case may be, I am wondering whether a man who, because

of the penalty, is not entitled to receive his holiday with pay money, and draws no money whatever, will be entitled co receive benefits under Clause 1 when it becomes law. As I see it, he will not, and therefore the penalty clause will operate against him. He will be called upon to take his holiday week without pay in the recognised period, and he will be entitled neither to unemployment benefit nor to anything else. He will be thrown back again on to public assistance funds. The part-time worker seems to be affected by this very materially. I beg the Minister, when he is drafting his regulations, to have particular regard to the part-time workers and to the penalty clauses which may be operating in the coalfields.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Adamson: The Minister claimed that practically 9,000,000 workers were covered by agreements and by other obligations for payment for a holiday. It indicated to me that he was probably claiming some little credit for the Measure that he introduced 12 months ago. Actually that was only an enabling Bill which gave powers to certain statutory bodies. Holidays vary in different districts. In some parts of the country they are in the wakes week, in others at the goose fair week and in others at different times and for different periods. There are many industries in which there is no defined period of holidays. I want to raise one or two of those exceptions. I do not envy the Minister's task in drafting his regulations. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can elucidate these regulations before even they are submitted to the organisations for consideration, and prior to their being placed on the Table of the House, how they are going to define the periods of holidays in varying conditions and what they are going to do about some essential sections of workers who have no period of holiday whatever? I have been seeking information and have been able to get an opinion as to two sections, seasonal and casual workers. I fail to understand how they can be included within the Measure. It is very difficult to understand, for instance, how dock workers can have effective agreements with their employers as to the allocation of holidays.
The information that I have received with regard to this is that, while the Bill


is not specific on the point, it is possible that the proposal to define holidays which shall be treated as Sundays will result in the position of some Members being less satisfactory, as days which at present can be counted as waiting days will no longer be so treated. The six-day week will be recognised in the main for administrative purposes and now the holidays are coming in the same category. But there is this difference that Sunday is a fixed day in the week, and the period of holidays cannot be determined as a fixed statutory period for any particular occupation or any number of occupations. Consequently the difficulties are going to be enormous. It is almost impossible to understand how regulations can be drafted to deal with the case of seasonal workers. The difficulties already in regard to unemployment insurance are very numerous, and this is going to add another anomaly in the case of this particular section of workers.
There has been some discussion as to the definition of holidays. I am not going to enter into that, but this Measure will not clarify the situation very much. There is one aspect of it which I want to raise, because I notice that this Clause is to come into operation on 31st October, 1939. That immediately raises the assumption that it will not operate for the greater part of the holiday season this year, and consequently we are to have a repetition of what took place after the last holiday period when boards of referees in some cases allowed a claim for unemployment benefit for certain days, because in some districts, even in the Bank-holiday week the recognised holiday was the Saturday and the Monday, and in some cases the Tuesday, and if in the circumstances workers had the qualifications they could have payment for the period of days if they were unemployed for the remainder of the week. But Sub-section (5) when applied will complicate matters. There have been considerable diversities in the decisions arrived at, not only by courts of referees, but by the Umpire.
I have two specific cases in connection with two important trades, as typical of what has happened. In the tinplate trade the general practice is that male employés are given £2 in lieu of wages for the holiday week and female workers are given £1. In the galvanising trades, an

analogous occupation, the employers give an ex gratia payment. In the one case the umpire upheld that benefit was legitimate, but in the other case it was refused. That of course, may be one of the reasons why the Statutory Committee have the responsibility placed upon them of defining what is the practice. There is some little difficulty in understanding how they are going to define holidays and where there is to be payment for the holiday. Instances have been given as to its application in the mining industry. In my own division the Can nock Chase Miners' Association entered into an agreement which provided not holidays with pay, but attendance bonus. The court of referees upheld the claim that they were entitled to benefit for the period of the holiday which was not the customary holiday in that district, but the payments were made according to their attendance and the persons who had recently come into the mines, of course, did not qualify. That, in the opinion of the majority of people was recognised as payment for holidays, although the payment actually coincided for a period of six months on the eve of the holiday week. In this particular case an appeal was made by the insurance officer to the umpire and was upheld by the umpire, but fortunately for the miners they had received their pay for last year.
Nevertheless, I think in Sub-section (5) you are actually reversing the position which has been established under the major Act, and that an appeal to the umpire will not be made in the same way as it has been. In fact, from my reading of the Sub-section the umpire will in all cases determine that where they have had a period of holidays they will not receive unemployment benefit. That is going to cut across cases where persons have had no payment whatever, who have had probably very intermittent employment and happen to come to a period of the usual holidays so that they will not be entitled to any claim on the Insurance Fund. That Sub-section, in my opinion, is giving very drastic power to the umpire in that direction. After all, there should be a consideration of the merits of the individual case; we should not legislate in general terms. In the main the administration must be carried out according to the circumstances of each individual case. Probably there will be difficulties in this direction.
With regard to the final application of the regulations, the point I want to put is: Are they to be applied to the industrial organisation in specific industries or are they to be of a general character? If they are really to be of a general character, then the interpretation must ultimately be very varied. I cannot see how that will apply unless they can be applicable to practically every section of the industry according to variations as to the number of days of employment and the various parts of the year in which the holidays are in operation, and the particular industries to which they apply. If there is an assurance that the regulations can be so framed that they are going to meet the varying conditions, then it might be somewhat more satisfactory, but we will wait to see what those regulations are before we pass any verdict upon them.
Now with regard to the various other portions of the Bill. I will deal only with one or two points. There is a point with regard to Clause 8 in connection with the training which is being extended to juveniles between 16 and 18. I notice that in Sub-section (1, b) the question of seamen, marines, soldiers and airmen arises, and I want to know why these are specifically mentioned in this Bill. My impression, and the impression of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is that training has been in operation for members of the Defence or armed Forces hitherto, and that the 1935 Consolidating Act includes them. Why are they specifically mentioned here? Will the Parliamentary Secretary also explain why in the Memorandum there is an indication that there will be an extra cost to the Exchequer under the new provisions which will not be considerable, but the Vote for the Ministry of Labour will bear as a final charge the cost of training members of the armed Forces which is now recovered from the Defence Departments.
The only point I want to make is as to whether there is any change in the payment from the Defence Forces to the Unemployment Insurance Fund for the training of the men from the Forces. I think that is very essential. It may be clear in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, but he only specifies in the Memorandum that it is now a charge on the Defence Funds. Secondly, why should these persons be included in this

section if under normal circumstances they have hitherto received training? Is there any change in the procedure, or is it merely the re-allocation of the method with the payments coming out of the Unemployment Insurance and then coming under the Ministry of Labour Board for discussion? Then with regard to the latter portion concerning the repeal of the provisions as respects periodical hirings in agriculture. That, I understand, is mostly in Scotland and probably the north. However, the figures that the right hon. Gentleman gave indicated that the numbers of unemployed in that particular section of agriculture had been more than was anticipated. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could give us any impression as to whether there has been any great degree of discontinuance of the long-period hirings, and what has been the effect of the application of the Unemployment Insurance to that section. In any case it would be interesting to know just what is the position.
There are two other points I want to raise. At various times representations have been made to the Insurance Statutory Committee with regard to the position of married women who have a good record in industry as to why the anomalies should still apply to them and also to seasonal workers. Those are two factors that have been placed before the Insurance Statutory Committee and they thought they were purely for Parliament to deal with. That should give an opportunity for the Minister to have in this Measure some method of overcoming that great problem of the anomalies. I know it is the general opinion that there ought to be some revision with regard to married women in industry who have good industrial recrds. Seasonal workers are another section who ought not to have been omitted from the Bill. We can hardly expect that the Minister of Labour is to get an ultra-share of legislation in the near future. This should have been an opportunity of bringing about such changes.
We on this side of the House accept some parts of the revision in this Measure. We take it as a sign of some little progress, although from the actuarial side of it I agree with hon. Members behind me that while you are giving a little with one hand the Minister is taking a great deal


more with the other. The Insurance Fund ultimately has to be the benefactor when the operation of this Measure is in full swing. Whatever the savings are, they are certainly higher than the expenditure which will take place in the various sections. However, we will await the Committee stage, when there will be further clarification of many of these sections, particularly in regard to how they are going to apply, and we will probably take the opportunity of putting down Amendments to strengthen the operation of the Bill, and, if possible, try to extend it within the scope of the Title.

9.34 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): I shall endeavour to copy the hon. Member who has just sat down not only in the reasonableness with which he has spoken, but also in response to requests from both sides about the speed with which I deliver my speeches. I understand that I have spoken at such a speed on previous occasions that Members have been left in doubt as to what I have been intending to convey and have even thought that I might have done it deliberately. I do welcome what the hon. Member has said, and I can assure him that my right hon. Friend will welcome his collaboration in any effort to make this Bill a better Bill in the Committee stage. I assure the hon. Member that all that he and other Members, on both sides of the House, have said will be read with interest to-morrow, and that all the suggestions that have been made will be borne in mind when we come to draft the regulations. I join with the hon. Member in agreeing that it is no enviable task to compose regulations adequate to problems of this kind; but we shall do all that we can to produce regulations that will command me widest possible measure of agreement, and I have little doubt that those regulations, when they appear, will be regarded as just and equitable by most people.
On this side of the House, we have little to quarrel with in the Debate that has taken place, and it is only on the one subject of holidays and insurance problems that there has been a certain measure of disagreement. The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Adamson) referred to the great number of variations in this problem and in particular to the variations in the decisions of various courts of

referees. I would remind him that it is in part because of those variations that it is thought necessary now to have statutory provisions. The hon. Member asked me one or two questions which I shall do my best to answer before coming to the main Debate and dealing with the points which he raised, in common with hon. Members who spoke before him.
In regard to Clause 8, Sub-section (1) (b), which deals with the training of seamen, marines, soldiers and airmen, the position is as follows: This Clause will give the Minister express authority to train serving soldiers. At present, although in fact we have that authority, we have ourselves no power to do so legally. Last year we took over the training of soldiers, but we did so as the agent of the War Office, and the result has been that we have had to recover the cost from the War Office. Now we can transfer this to the Ministry of Labour Vote, although the War Office will continue to be responsible for the pay and allowances of the soldiers concerned. The hon. Member also referred to the question of long hirings in Scotland and the North of England. We have no information to suggest that there has been a decline in the practice of long hirings, but we have information which shows that this scheme has not brought about the result for which it was designed, that is to say, an increase in the security of occupations in that part of the country, and the cost, when compared with the results, has been too considerable to justify a continuance of the scheme. I hope a little later on, when we get to the agricultural draft order, to answer any detailed questions which hon. Members may wish to put on this subject.
When I said that on this side of the House there was little in the Debate with which we could quarrel, I forgot one particular phrase used by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and I hope he will pardon me for reminding him of it. No one—least of all somebody as new to the problems of unemployment insurance as I am—could listen to what the hon. Member has to say without realising that the hon. Member is a mine of information on this subject which he has made particularly his own, and that his knowledge is not only knowledge that comes from a study of Acts and regulations, but from the very human contacts


which he is privileged to enjoy. Nevertheless, when the hon. Member said—waving the report as he did so—that the report of the Statutory Committee hurled out attacks and charges against the unemployed, I think he was carrying words a little too far. There is in this report no attack, either express or implied, against those contributors to the Unemployment Fund with whom we are dealing now. The overwhelming majority of them are decent people who want to get out of the insurance system only what everybody who is insured wishes to get, that to which they have proper legal rights. They are as anxious as we in this House are that the scheme should be well and properly run. They are no more anxious to get advantages to which they are not entitled than, I feel, are the employers who may, perhaps because of the haziness of the law in the past, have been enabled to unload on to the Unemployment Fund their own proper responsibility of providing holidays with pay. I would point out that one result of this Bill may well be still further to stimulate that highly desirable movement. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) referred to the conditions that constitute a holiday. I may perhaps have misunderstood the exact connection in which he made his remarks, and if I did, I apologise to him; but my impression was that he suggested that if a man who is going away for what is, in effect, a holiday, is not paid, it is not a real holiday, and that therefore, a special procedure should be applied.

Mr. T. Smith: I think the hon. Member misunderstood me. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) asked what was a holiday, in a kind of rhetorical way, and I said that if the hon. Member had been present, I would have given him what I believed to be a holiday.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Then I misunderstood the hon. Member, but I take this opportunity of pointing out that it would encourage employers not to give holidays with pay if the sort of provision which I thought he had in mind were inserted in the Bill. Reference has been made to the Debate which took place in this House in May, 1934, when this subject was under discussion. I think that

perhaps the hon. Member for Gorbals may have had in his possession a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT of that day.

Mr. T. Smith: I hope the hon. Gentleman's reference to holidays is not going to be the last word on the subject. What I pointed out was that there are many cases where a man is transferred from one district to another and because he has not had the requisite length of service with his employer and is out of work, it is a holiday without any pay at all. What would be the position in law?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly, I will take careful note of that observation. That is one of the problems that we shall have to consider when drafting the regulations. In regard to the Debate which took place on 3rd May, 1934, the suggestion has been made that the Minister of Labour of that time was obliged to withdraw a proposal similar to the one in this Bill because of the same arguments that have been advanced in the House this afternoon. I may perhaps refresh the memory of those hon. Members who have forgotten the exact form which that Debate took by reminding them that the Minister of Labour, in withdrawing that proposal, said:
The conclusion that I have come to after listening to the Debate is that this Clause, if passed into law, would act unequally throughout the country for the reason that there are different customs in different localities." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1934; col. 532, Vol. 289.]
It is because of that very difficulty that we are taking power in this Bill to apply a different procedure, if need be, to different localities and trades.

Mr. Buchanan: May I point out that it is not proposed to do that? The Bill says that nobody can receive payment for a holiday. The Bill does not allow for this difference.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is the point to which I was coming. The Bill does not define a holiday; that will be left to the regulations. What the Bill says, in Clause 1, Sub-section (4) is:
Any such regulations as aforesaid may be made so as to apply either generally as respects all insured contributors, employed contributors or employed persons, or as respects any particular insured contributors, employed contributors or employed persons, or any class or classes thereof.


This is the Clause to which the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) took some exception, rather because of a misapprehension as to the use to which it would be put. Of course, the words which I have quoted can be geographical in application, and they can also vary in application according to different groups of persons. There is a further reason why the arguments that were advanced in the Debate in May, 1934, are no longer applicable to-day. Here I must once more return to that paragraph in the report of the Statutory Committee to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) referred:
Whatever the justification for the rule adopted by the Umpire in the past, the position in regard to possible hardship has been changed radically by the reduction of the waiting time from six days to three days. With that reduction the rule, as explained above, produces indefensible anomalies and inconveniences.''
The hon. Member for Gorbals described these proposals in regard to holidays and insurance as being retrograde in the extreme, but I venture to think that if the present confusion between unemployment and holidays is allowed to continue without steps being taken to check it, then the hon. Member will find that disadvantages will result for that very insured population whose welfare he has at heart. We believe that the only sound and healthy basis for holidays is holidays with pay, and that wages should be adjusted to enable people to enjoy a holiday, and also if possible, that the wages during the weeks preceding the holiday should allow something to be put by in order to provide more adequately for the holiday itself. Permanently to continue the present confusion would hold up that very development of paid holidays which the whole House has accepted in principle and on which we are now actively working. The ideas of the hon. Member would undermine what we regard as the only healthy basis of holidays with pay, and I do not believe that in the end the people for whose interests he battles so thoroughly would find that they had more money than under the procedure which we have devised. Everybody who has examined this problem, from the Amulree Committee to the Statutory Committee, has come to the definite conclusion that the provisions in the Unemployment Insurance Act permitting unemployment benefit payments during the period of paid

holidays must be reconsidered, and it is because of that agreement, to which both those bodies have come, that we are introducing this Bill.
The hon. Member for Gorbals, in common with a large number of other hon. Members opposite, referred to the continuity rule, and here I would like to make one reference to the speech of the hon. Member for the Rother Valley (Mr. Dunn), which I was glad to be able to hear and in which I feel that a great deal of useful information will be found for those on whose shoulders will fall the task of devising the regulations. The hon. Member for Gorbals, in dealing with the customary days of holiday in his part of Scotland, gave the impression, I feel unintentionally, that under the Bill people now enjoying customary holidays will lose benefits which they at present receive. There is in fact only the possibility of those customary holidays ranking for continuity of unemployment, and I hope this answer will give the hon. Member some reassurance, though I am uncertain as to whether it will be sufficient. If the extent of time off work was under 12 days, it is true that the contributors would lose the three days' waiting period, unless, of course, they got that advantage of the extension under Clause 3 from 10 to 20 weeks, but otherwise the 12-day rule would bring in the whole period, including the holiday, and so they would be exactly as they are now. Perhaps the hon. Member would like me to follow up that reference to the 12-day rule. The object of the rule, as he knows, so far as regards holidays, is to help to define the cases in which, owing to an extension of what otherwise would have been a period of holiday, the whole period, including the holiday, is to be counted as unemployment. The regulations to be made under this Bill must lay down a rule for this purpose, and there is no reason to suppose that it would differ substantially from the rule that is now in operation.
There is one further remark that fell from the hon. Member—and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) made the same observation—drawing attention to the differences between Scotland and London and other localities but I think I have sufficiently dealt with that matter in what I have already said. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street also made a reference to Southern Ireland. I can assure him


that a number of efforts have been made since 1924 to bring this difficulty to a satisfactory conclusion, but, of course, there are two countries involved, and for the last 14 years there has been an inevitable tendency for our two systems to diverge. With regard to training it is not expected that reducing the age at which the Ministry has power to offer training will lead to an increase in the establishment at the centres or that there would be any new threat, if indeed, as I cannot admit, there ever has been a threat, to the position of the skilled men in trade unions for whose welfare we must always be on the look out.

Mr. Lawson: Will steps be taken to consult the trade unions or the Trades Union Congress in reference to this?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If there is any point that they are anxious to raise on that subject, I hope we shall have one of those very friendly contacts which we have had on other questions. With regard to Clause 5, I think the hon. Member for East Birkenhead was a little disturbed, but I think he misunderstood the purpose of the Clause, because he thought it dealt with cases of men who stopped short deliberately just before they received their maximum benefit. It does not deal with that case at all. It is a very complicated case, but with the good will of the House I would like to try and explain it. A man with 30 contributions and entitled to 156 days' benefit in a benefit year might draw for 136 days and then go to work. Assume that this happens in the month of August and then he loses his employment and claims unemployment benefit. The court of referees disallows the claim, and an appeal goes to the Umpire. He still at this stage has 20 days to count. Then comes the month of September, and he becomes unemployed again, having had work mean-while. This time the claim is allowed, and he draws his 20 days' benefit. Then in the month of October the Umpire decides in favour of the August claim, declaring that the applicant is entitled to the 20 days' benefit to which he should have been entitled in August. If this was conceded, the applicant would receive 176 days' benefit payment instead of 156. We do not think that it is desirable, because of the inevitable delay in the Umpire coming to a decision, that an

anomaly of that kind should be allowed. It is only a small point, but as the hon. Member for East Birkenhead raised it, I thought it desirable to deal with it in some detail.
The hon. Member for East Birkenhead, the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant), and the hon. Member for Can-nock also referred to the way in which these regulations would be brought before the House of Commons, and asked what safeguards there were for ensuring adequate Parliamentary discussion and control. The position is this. The draft regulations would go to the Statutory Committee, which would advertise them, and the widest possible collaboration would be invited. I can assure the hon. Member for Cannock that any interested parties or individuals would be able to tender such advice as they might wish to give. The Statutory Committee would report to the Minister, who would consider the report, and make regulations. They would come into force and be laid on the Table of the House of Commons, and if within 20 days a Prayer were asked for, a discussion would take place. I may perhaps point out that if there is in fact a feeling that this is a set of regulations on which further discussion is desirable, there is no doubt whatever that that discussion will be arranged. The hon. Member for Dundee asked what would be the position in the case of this publication if the House had already risen. He knows that the date for coming into force is 5th October, and we shall do our utmost to produce the regulations before the House rises. I cannot go farther than that, but I quite appreciate the force of the point that he made.

Mr. Gallacher: Can the hon. Gentleman leave the date indefinite until the Committee stage, in order that if he cannot produce the Regulations before the House rises, there will be an opportunity for the House to consider them before they come into operation?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think that that would wholly meet the situation, but we are conscious of the difficulties, and the points that have been made will not be lost sight of. In regard to other points, I can reassure the hon. Member for East Birkenhead on another subject that he mentioned. On Clause 2, Subsection (2), he appeared to be disturbed


about the use of the word "prescribe." He appeared to think that there might be two sets of Regulations, one which the Minister usually devises to lay before Parliament, and one that he was entitled to prescribe on his own account. This Clause, however, refers to Regulations of the normal kind, and there is no sinister intention at all. In regard to the question of the non-manual workers raised by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead and by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, both hon. Members are conscious of the amount of time that has been devoted to the consideration of this subject and the correspondence and meetings that have taken place. I assure them that what they have said will be given attention.
The hon. Member for East Birkenhead also raised the question of the saving of £400,000 and the further charge of £600,000 and suggested the possibility that the contributors who would be deprived of the £400,000 would not be the same as those who would receive the £600,000. It is impossible to say that in every case they will be the same, but in a great number of cases they will be the same people and I do not think there is any reason to be unduly disturbed by fears of that kind. There was another suggestion by the hon. Member which hardly squared with what he said about a large sum of money being available for disposal which would not go to the people who were entitled to it. He referred to the possibility of persons who were not receiving benefit because of this Bill going to the Unemployment Assistance Board and receiving assistance instead. That hardly squares with the argument which he used previously, but I pass over that and merely remind him of the fact that, of course, the Unemployment Assistance Board has a statutory duty to relieve need, if need is proved.
The hon. Member for Gorbals, leaving for a moment the subject of holidays and insurance, took up the question of the calculation of dependant's benefit. He was a little in error when he said that in the case of a wife, it would be necessary for the applicant to prove that he either wholly or mainly maintained her. He is not required to prove this if they are living together. The argument which he used in favour of extending the Clause to deal with housekeepers raised the very

difficulties which reformers always find before them. The Minister when first considering whether it would be possible to extend this advantage of dependant's benefit to daughters, realised that it might well happen that this would be used as an argument in favour of extending the privilege still further. But he realised that there is here a close relationship and that arguments could be advanced in favour of this extension which could not be advanced in favour of any wider extension. There is as well this argument. As benefit involves a flat rate of pay, it is important to confine the dependants to close relations otherwise very complicated and difficult questions of differential rates might be raised.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Does the Minister suggest that there are no cases in which a husband has had the wife's dependants' allowance stopped because there was more money coming into the house. If he says that there are no such cases, I will bring him some.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the hon. Member is confusing this with unemployment assistance. I must stick to the argument which I have advanced in the case of benefit.

Mr. Griffiths: I am referring to statutory benefit. The wife's allowance has been taken away from the husband in the case of statutory benefit, because the sons have brought more money into the house than he has.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Finally I would like to meet the argument advanced by the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant). No one could have listened to his speech on the apprenticeship system without being impressed and I assure him that what he said impressed hon. Members on this side very much indeed. Nobody can deny the value to an industrial country of the apprenticeship system and neither my right hon. Friend nor any Member of the Government would wish to propose measures likely to interfere with its proper growth. May I say that although, I am sure, it was a certain hardship on the hon. Member himself, I could not help thinking what a good thing it was that during the years 1931 to 1935 he was obliged to return to his old occupation because he has now come back to the House with the advantages gained by a renewal of contact with his trade enabling him to give us


such speeches as that which we heard to-day I assure him that we value the apprenticeship system but we believe that the Government training centres are excellent institutions serving an excellent purpose. No one is going to say that they are solving the problem of the younger unemployed but no one who has visited these Government training centres as I have done can fail to come away deeply impressed by the work which is being done in them. The difficulties of limiting the number who are taken in, to the absorptive capacity of the industrial market, are well-known to Members on both sides of the House but no one can say that young men of 17 or even younger who wish to take advantage of training should be precluded by statute from doing so. In what we have done, I assure hon. Members that there is no threat whatever to the apprenticeship system or the trade unions both of which have a great part to play in the future of the country.

Mr. Viant: I do not want you to restrict it; I want you to do it more thoroughly.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would like in conclusion to assure the House that when this Bill goes on to the Statute Book the unemployment insurance system will be improved and strengthened and I think that with the removal of one or two existing anomalies better opportunities will be provided for all the contributors to the Fund. I am sure that this will prove an excellent piece of legislation.

Mr. Sexton: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question which I put in reference to Clause 10, about the travelling expenses of those who have to go as far as 18 miles.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will look into that before the Committee stage.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[SIR DENNIS HERBERT IN THE CHAIR.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to unemployment in-

surance, national health insurance, and widows, orphans and old age contributory pensions (hereafter in this resolution referred to as 'the new Act') it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(1) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by virtue of Sections twenty-one and ninety-four of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, as amended by any subsequent enactment (hereafter in this resolution referred to as 'the principal Act'), and Sections twelve and one hundred and eighty-five of the National Health Insurance Act, 1936, as so amended, and Section eighteen of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1936, which is attributable to the passing of the provisions of the new Act relating to holidays;

(2) any increase in the sums so payable by virtue of Sections twenty-one, ninety-four, and ninety-five of the principal Act which is attributable to the passing of the provisions of the new Act relating to Northern Ireland, employment on board His Majesty's ships and Section ten of the Unemployment Insurance (Agriculture) Act, 1936;

(3) any increase in the expenses of the Minister of Labour under Section seventy-seven and Sub-section (2) of Section seventy- nine of the principal Act which is attributable to the passing of the provisions of the new Act empowering him—

(a) to provide training courses under the said Section seventy-seven for—

(i) persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen who are capable of and available for work but have no work or only part-time or intermittent work; and
(ii) seamen, marines, soldiers and airmen; and 
(b) to make payments under the said Sub-section (2) to persons attending a course referred to therein notwithstanding that it is provided only for persons who have not attained the age of eighteen years, except in the case of a course provided under Section seventy-six of the principal Act." —(King's Recommendation signified.) — [Mr. E. Brown.]?

10.4 p.m.

Mr Foot: It seems to me that this is another of those Money Resolutions, of which we have had so many, which are drawn in rather unnecessary detail. I think some explanation is required of why it has been found necessary to set out this Resolution at such length I draw the attention of the Committee to one point only in the Resolution. Paragraph 3 authorises the payment of any increase in the expenses of the Minister of Labour under Sections 77 and 79 of the principal Act which are attributable to the passing of the provisions of the new


Act. Why should not the words of the Resolution stop there? Why should it be necessary to put in further words of limitation and to define the expenditure envisaged here as the provision of training courses for persons between the ages of 16 and 18? Supposing it were thought necessary under this Bill to incur additional expenditure for persons outside those ages, any Amendment to do that would be debarred by the terms of this Money Resolution. It does seem unnecessary that it should be expressed in so much detail, and I think we ought to have a word of explanation.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: The considerations which we have had before us in framing this Money Resolution have been, first, that the House should not be unduly debarred from dealing with any matters with which the Bill is concerned, and, secondly, that the Resolution should not be drawn so widely as to raise all kinds of financial issues for the Exchequer which are not within the term of the Measure. I think we have really succeeded in doing that, and the hon. Member will see that for practical purposes we do cover the point which he made. It is true that it is our normal practice not to take young people for training except between the ages of 18 and 35, and since we ourselves only desire to provide for a very small number of those below 17, no very large number of boys just over 16 will be taken in. I appreciate the hon. Member's keen desire to see that we do in fact carry out what is the wish of the House, and it did not occur to us that anybody would want to widen that provision in any way.

Mr. Foot: I agree that it is unlikely that anybody would wish to go below the age of 16, but any one who did wish to move an Amendment on those lines would be debarred from doing so by the terms of this Money Resolution, and that is precisely what the Select Committee in its report tried to avoid.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member naturally takes a keenly critical interest in this matter, but we are concerned with the practical job of drafting the Measure and we have to have regard not only to theories but to the practical possibilities of trying to meet the wishes of the House.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACTS, 1935 TO 1938.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move,
That the draft of the Unemployment Insurance (Increase of Benefits and Reduction in Contributions) (Agriculture) Order, 1939, laid before this House on the ninth day of March in pursuance of the provisions of Subsection (4) of Section 59 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, be approved.
This Order is the outcome of a very highly satisfactory state of affairs, and I think I need make only a brief statement upon the present position of the agricultural account of the fund and the changes in contributions and benefits which the Order proposes. Last year the excess of income over expenditure was £949,000, and upon the last day of last year there was an accumulated reserve of £2,774,000. The reasons for that balance and for that excess of income over expenditure are well known to all Members, and it is the view of the Statutory Committee that the following changes are required. Contributions in respect of those of 18 years and over will be reduced by 1d. from July, 1939, to July, 1942, and thereafter by ½d. That means that men over 21 will until July, 1942, pay 3d. instead of 4d., and afterwards 3½d.; that women over 21 will pay 2½d. and later 3d.; that young men between 18 and 21 will pay 2½d. and later 3d.; and young women 18 to 21 will pay 2d. and later 2½d. The object of the change in the next three years is partly to reduce the present large balance and return to industry as early as possible some of the past contributions levied in excess of requirements.
In regard to benefits, very substantial benefits are recommended. The benefit for men of 21 and over will be raised by 1s. from 14s. to 15s., and for women by 6d. from 12s. 6d. to 13s. For men between 18 and 21 it will be raised by 1s. from 12s. to 13s. and for women between those ages by 6d. from 9s. 6d. to 10s. The benefit for boys from 17 to 18 will be raised by 1s. 6d. from 6s. to 7s. 6d., and for girls by 1s. from 5s. to 6s. Of those under 17, boys will in future receive 1s. more, that is 5s., and girls 6d. more, that is 4s. In addition the benefit for adult dependants will be increased by 2s. from 7s. to 9s. This, of course, involves a change in the maximum sum that could be received by way of benefit


by an unemployed agricultural worker. There have been many arguments urged in favour of raising this maximum figure, and now an unanswerable reply is advanced because of the changes in the benefits, and also because of the fact that since the fund was first instituted there has been a very substantial improvement in the value of wages in the average agricultural county. Under the new arrangement a married man with two children will receive 30s. Hitherto that has been the maximum even for a married man with three children, but he will now be in a position to receive 33s. This is an improvement which, I think, will commend itself to the House.
These changes will involve a decrease in the income of the fund on the agricultural account of about £380,000 a year for the first three years from July, 1939, and later £190,000 a year, while there will be an increase in the expenditure at once of £78,000 and later of £101,000. We propose to start the higher benefits immediately, on 30th March, if the House agrees to-night to this Draft Order, but the lower contributions are not to begin until the new unemployment books are issued early in July this year. I need not deal with the problem of long hirings, which has already been raised, and I hope that the arguments in favour of the change proposed which I put forward upon the Bill to which we have just given a Second Reading have adequately met any doubts and difficulties in people's minds.
I commend this draft regulation to the House because it carries a stage further the work of restoring the common status to the agricultural worker. I have always held the view that there is no logical reason why the agricultural worker should not have been given the advantage of unemployment insurance. The discrimination against him was removed two years ago and now the opportunity has arisen, because of this surplus, to increase still further the advantages given to him. We are dealing with the men and women upon whom our survival as a great nation depends. One of the most important among contemporary political problems is how to get more people back to the land to maintain them and to keep them there at adequate wages. Not the least of the methods whereby that can be achieved is the proposal which I now commend to

the House. While there will be no pause in our proposals to bring agricultural revival, I think that this draft Order is a real contribution towards the task in which all parties are united.

10.15. p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I am certain that this Order will receive the universal assent of the House, but the Minister cannot congratulate himself on this Order having been possible. While we are all anxious to improve the benefits and the general situation as affecting agricultural labourers in what we have been doing for the past 18 months or two years we have not given the agricultural worker who was unemployed the benefits to which he was entitled. Instead of doing something to keep the skilled agricultural labourer on the land, as the Parliamentary Secretary said they were doing, the separate scheme for agriculture, with the miserably low benefits, tended to decrease the number of skilled workers on the land, for during the past two years there has been no diminution in the numbers that have left the land. We understand that in 1936 the Government were taking a. leap in the dark. The actuary had no figures upon which he might make a fairly safe calculation, but the Government at that time were not only timid, they were actually mean to agricultural labourers. The result has been more or less disastrous to agriculture, since the number of young men who might have been kept on the land has decreased and the town has had its unemployment increased accordingly.
I said in 1936 that the contributions were high enough for such lowly-paid workers and that the benefits were too low. I disputed the prophecies of the Government about a 7½ per cent. unemployment figure, and fortunately that figure, which was accepted by the actuary and the Government, has been reduced to only about 5½ per cent. Instead of the estimate of a surplus of £831,000 in the first 18 months, we have a surplus of £2,770,000 at the end of two years. It is easy for the Statutory Committee to make recommendations of this kind to improve benefits and to decrease the weekly contributions, but during those two years we have been paying to men over 21. either married or single, only 14s. per week. I said in 1936 that to offer benefits of 14s. a week to a person who was legitimately unemployed was to


compel him to sponge on poverty-stricken homes and that, instead of doing so, he would march to the town or the city and we should lose our best skilled labourers for all time. The estimates have gone wrong, but they have gone wrong fortunately in the right direction. Unemployment has been far less than was anticipated by the Department or the Minister, but there has not been as much unemployment actually in agriculture because the labourer who has fallen unemployed has automatically migrated somewhere else and obtained a situation. The real numbers, therefore, have not expressed themselves at the Employment Exchanges.
The recommendations of the Statutory Committee are thoroughly acceptable, and as the Parliamentary Secretary said, we are anxious to see this scheme constantly develop. We want to see not only the benefits increased, but a new relationship between the general scheme of benefits and the benefits paid to unemployed agricultural labourers. The increased benefits are acceptable to those who have been in receipt of so little in the past, but if one examines them closely one sees that they do not mean very much even now. The young man between 18 and 21 who falls unemployed is still to receive 13s. a week with the addition that this Order makes. Imagine a man of that age, a big, strong, hearty young man, falling out of work for four or five weeks in December and January, when the numbers, according to the statistics, are increasing every year, and who has to hang on in his rural area on 13s. a week. It is not a very great encouragement, even with the addition. Boys between the ages of 17 and 18 require good food and all the encouragement that parents can give to retain them at home, even with the increase, which amounts to 1s. 1d. per day. Between the ages of 17 and 18 the increase will be 10 d. per day. It is true that those increases are very welcome but they are not as much as we desire.
I would add one word about the Government side of the scheme. I said in 1936, and I have to repeat it in 1939, that when farmers are to be dealt with the Government are rarely known to be ungenerous, but when agricultural labourers are to be dealt with the Government have never been known to be really generous. In 1936, the contribution paid

by the Government for every person over 21 in the general scheme was 10d. and the contribution paid under the agricultural workers scheme was 4½d. Since that time, the contributions for the person of 21 years of age or over have been reduced by ½d. per week and the Government incidentally make a saving. This order further decreases the contribution to 1942, and then half the decrease will come back, and so we go from 4d. to 3d. and then back to 3½d. Between 1939 and 1942, as a result of the reduction in contributions, the Government are going to save annually about £130,000 or £140,000. In other words, while they are reducing contributions to the agricultural labourers Unemployment Insurance Fund, and while they are supposed to be giving the unemployed agricultural workers increases of benefit, the Government are actually saving for the Treasury as much as they are giving to the agricultural workers in increased benefits. [AN HON. MEMBER: "No."] Approximately, yes, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not deny the statement that I am making.
One of the things emerging from the recommendations of the Statutory Committee, as I stated at this Box in 1936, is that the Government were all wrong when they granted a rebate for long hirings. My statements were right. The Statutory Committee told us that to pay out £10,000 in rebates has cost not less than £12,000 in administration. It has cost us £12,000 to pay a rebate of £10,000 to farmers to hire their labourers for a long term. I am glad that the Government are accepting the recommendations of the Statutory Committee and are abolishing the rebate for long hiring. Those who clamoured most for a rebate were those farmers who engaged their labourers for a long period and who told the Statutory Committee that unemployment was much less in their areas than in other areas. All their statements have been proved to be false because, as a matter of fact, where long hiring has taken place unemployment has been larger than in other areas where the workers were paid weekly or in other ways.
I welcome the improvement that has taken place. If the Government still want to keep agricultural labourers on the land they will not only do something to stabilize


prosperity in agriculture but will encourage the skilled men and the younger generation to remain on the farms by providing them with reasonable conditions and by not separating so sharply the conditions obtaining in towns from those obtaining in rural areas. That situation has gone so far that it has now become a menace to farmers, and they would do almost anything to produce the appropriate number of skilled labourers on the land. I know that the Minister of Labour can do little in this respect, but, so far as benefits are concerned, he ought to bear in mind the fact that benefits must not be regarded as having too close a relationship to wages. The wages of agricultural workers have always been too low; they are too low to-day; and when we are considering benefits which are only very occasional benefits, we ought not to forget that, if an agricultural labourer loses a week's wages of 32s. or 33s., it is not too much to allow him, if his family is large enough, to have as much benefit as if he pursued his normal avocation. We welcome these improvements, and look forward to the day when they will be increased even more.

10.27 p.m.

Sir Thomas Rosbotham: I want to congratulate the Minister of Labour on the success of this scheme. I have been on many a deputation to Ministries of Labour to make strong requests that the agricultural worker should have a system of unemployment insurance, but we were always told that it would require new legislation, and the matter was shelved. I think it is right that we should now offer to the Minister some congratulations. His office is one of great difficulty, and he does not get many favours shown to him. He will probably recall a deputation of one that waited upon him. That deputation of one was the Member for Ormskirk, and I told him then that I was certain that, if he pressed forward with an unemployment insurance scheme for agricultural workers, he would have a substantial balance. To-night that has been proved to be the case, and I am sure the Minister is gratified by the success of the efforts that he put forward to get this scheme on the Statute Book.
Like the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), I wish that agriculture could be so prosperous that the men would remain on the land, and that they

would be better paid. We know that many men have left the land to work on the new road schemes, because they could get better pay. We want to be in a position on the land to pay our men as much wages as they are paid on these road schemes, and I trust that every effort will be put forward to bring prosperity to the land. These men who work on the land are very worthy men. They are real craftsmen. Let anyone who has never had hold of a plough before try to plough a straight furrow and see what a mess he will make of it. The agricultural worker cannot only plough a straight furrow in the literal sense, but also in the moral sense. He is a fine type of man, and deserves every support. I wish again heartily to congratulate the Minister on the success he has attained. I trust that, when an accumulated balance arises again, something will be done for the elderly men by way of a grant that would enable them to go on to a cottage holding and spend the rest of their lives in peace.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I rise only to ask one question. What puzzles me is the position of women under this agricultural insurance scheme. In my own division—the North-Eastern division—I find that the unemployment among women is about 63 per cent., whereas that among men is 7 per cent. I cannot understand this large proportion of women unemployed under the agricultural insurance scheme. Some divisions have a rate of unemployment of only 14 per cent., yet in the North-Eastern area it is 63 per cent. The feeling among the agricultural workers is that, while they are anxious for the women to have an insurance scheme, they do not want the women to be an undue burden on the scheme. If the Minister can explain the high rate of unemployment among women it will give some satisfaction.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. John Morgan: I am sorry to be obliged to put in a cautionary word about the balance that has accumulated. To me it is a danger signal an indication that a dual scheme of unemployment insurance is proving to be an instrument for driving away from the land men who otherwise would stay. The amount that has accumulated is significant. I believe that the actuarial framers of the scheme were not so far out; that there has been


that amount of unemployment in agriculture, but the affected men have left the industry in order to qualify in the general scheme. They have earned their general stamps, and have then left on the cards the agricultural insurance stamps that have not been utilised. They have had no benefit from the stamps, numbering fewer than 20, that may be on the cards, and these have simply gone to the credit of the Fund. The men have left the land, and have been seeking the benefits of the general scheme. I believe there will be no advantage from all this until there is one scheme for agriculture and for industry as a whole. This is borne out by figures published in the "Labour Gazette" for August and September, which indicate that the number of men working in agriculture between the ages of 21 and 45 are considerably fewer, proportionate to the numbers employed, than in general industry. They have left the farming industry to go out to other industries, in order to qualify. And the reason is clear from the benefits paid in this scheme, for 13s. a week for a man of 20 or so out of work leaves him no alternative but to find another job elsewhere. His agricultural insurance card is worth nothing to him in that sphere; he must earn his stamps in another line of life. Any improvement in benefits, or any lowering of the contribution from 4d. to 3d. will not affect this drain of men from agriculture.
I think a scheme which segregates the agricultural worker in this way tends to accentuate the very thing we are against, the special treatment of agriculture and agricultural workers, and it tends to affect the whole position in a way that cannot be regarded with satisfaction. I believe the main point is that this accumulation does not indicate that unemployment has not been as acute in the industry as was allowed for at the beginning of the scheme. We are faced with the fact still—and I think the Minister can confirm it—that we are losing men at the rate of 1,000 a month from the industry at the present time. They are drifting into these other industries, and the point is that there is no machinery to enable the men to drift back again. Once a man has earned his insurance card in general industry, he has no inducement to come back into agriculture on that basis of benefit.
The argument that is created by this surplus is an argument not for offering lower contributions. Actually we ought to be seeing the contributions rise in order to enable the agricultural worker eventually to qualify in the general scheme. The lower the payment you call upon him to make, if you get him down to 3d., the easier it becomes for a low wage to stand the deduction of that low payment. But if you are forcing up the amount of weekly stamps on the cards, you will be bringing the agricultural worker nearer to being brought within the scope of the general scheme, which, I believe, will be the only solution in the end.
The little support that we get from this scheme in the direction of forcing up wages is to the good. In three counties at least they are going to be able to pay unemployment insurance in excess of the wages laid down by the agricultural committee, and in the case of nearly half the counties the benefits for the unemployed man will be within 2s. 6d. a week of the county wage laid down, and that anomaly will not be countenanced for long. It will mean that the increased benefits are going to force up the wage levels in the agricultural industry, and for that we are glad. Therefore, I suggest that, if we could have kept up that type of pressure through the instrument of unemployment insurance, it would compel the agricultural industry to face up to the postiion of paying a higher wage to its workers. Not that I am complaining that the farmer is not paying the wage that he should. That is not the present point. It is that I believe that any pressure of this kind will force the country as a whole to face up to the real state of agriculture. If you perpetuate conditions which allow low insurance benefits to support low wages, you remove part of the case of agriculture for proper treatment in this House and the country as a whole. We have to build up the case for agriculture to pay a better wage, and if we can make the farmer approach it in that way, he must be forced to support the case which is being built to pay higher wages and bring them more into line with those paid to skilled workers in any other kind of industry. One of the instruments we must not weaken in forcing up the wage position is unemployment insurance, and the nearer we can bring the benefits and the weekly


contributions to those of the general scheme, the more likely we are to bring satisfactory upward pressure upon the general wage position and the proper treatment of agriculture by the country as a whole.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: Before a reply is made from the Government Front Bench, may I ask a question about what, I think, is a point which the Minister could easily make? We are told that there will be a saving of £12,000 in doing away with the rebates that have been made in respect of long-term hiring. I am concerned to know what is involved in that saving? How will that saving be realised, and what does it involve for those who have been in charge of that administration? Does it mean anything in the way of dismissals of those who have been concerned with that administration or how will, in fact, this £12,000 saving be realised?

10.40 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I am glad to reply to some of the points which have been put, as well as to the general argument and to the references to past prophecies. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) put a question about the percentage of women. All that I can tell him about the actual percentage is that it is a fact. Of course it varies in different areas, and it may be that the East and North-East areas have a larger percentage compared with the others. I am anxious to go a little further than that, because the House might get the impression from the large percentage quoted that it is likely to be a menace to the scheme as a whole. Let me give the figures, so that the House will know what the size of the problem is. The total number of persons insured is 720,000. Of these 34,000 are adult women, 5,500 young women, 4,500 girls between 16 and 17, and 3,000 girls between 14 and 15. So, whatever may be the excess percentage in particular areas, with regard to the scheme as a whole it cannot be a problem of such magnitude that it will endanger the finance of the scheme. However, we shall watch it. I can assure the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) who asked a question about the staff that it will have no large effect upon the personnel. It is a question of the redistribution of work, because the saving is in the actual

machinery of this particular scheme. It is a very expensive one. In our administrative machinery we do not keep the entire staff as permanent. There are always some coming and going because we have to work administratively according to the number of unemployed in an area. The saving is in the actual administration and it should not largely affect the personnel.
I will not be drawn at this stage into a wide discussion into the causes of the decline of agricultural labour from the land except that I would put in a caveat. I would ask the hon. Member for Don-caster (Mr. J. Morgan) not to attach quite so much importance to unemployment insurance as a factor in the drift from the land as he appeared to. I have never put it as high as that, for it is only one factor of many. Any man surveying the problem of the trend of labour in industry will know that there is a drift against work in the mines in certain areas, there is a drift against work in the merchant service, and there is a drift against work in the home as well as a tendency against work on the land, and it is a question of the whole condition and not of one particular item in the condition which has to be faced.

Mr. J. Morgan: You would admit that the agricultural worker rather covets the benefits of the general insurance scheme?

Mr. Brown: I was coming to that point. Therefore I welcome, and I am sure agricultural Members welcome, the references to the fact that this is as much a matter for the non-agricultural as for the agricultural parts of the country.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir T. Rosbotham) for the kindly things that he said. He joined the prophets in 1936, as did the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I am always glad to hear a prophet who is able to say, "I told you so." I shall have to revise the aphorism that Mr. Gladstone used to use. He used to say, "You cannot argue with a prophet. You can only disbelieve him." I will not say that I disbelieved them in 1936, but I was certain that I was going to take no responsibility for bringing in the first scheme for agricultural workers too optimistically, and I said so over and over again. I had much rather begin cautiously and see whether I could do more after gaining experience than begin


by measuring the problem too optimistically and having to increase contributions or lower benefits at the end of the day.
I would draw attention to the low percentage of unemployment in agriculture. It is not the case that men are leaving the land and taking other work merely because of unemployment benefit. There are many other reasons. In some cases other work has been available at very high wages, and that may not be the case in three years time. A good proportion of unemployment of an agricultural character does not now rank but may then rank for agricultural benefit, and we may find the proportion much higher. Indeed the Statutory Committee hints that the time may come when the proportion will be as high as 70 per cent.
I cannot let this Debate close without paying a tribute to the memory of the late Mr. Alfred Shaw who represented the trade unions on the Statutory Committee with such skill, pertinacity, wisdom and with such human sympathy from the beginning until his recent death. I am sure the whole House will wish to express to his relatives their sympathy and appreciation of the great work he has done in connection with the unemployment insurance scheme. For my part it is a great joy to know that we are able to increase the benefits for the workers concerned. I have not gone as far as some hon. Members would wish to go, but I ask the House to understand that as long as I am Minister of Labour, whether it is an industrial or an agricultural scheme, I do not propose to come to this House with a scheme which will not stand the test of time as far as any man can reasonably foresee it. I prefer to do a little less and be asked for more, rather than do so much more and then have to cut the more at the end of an adverse day.

Resolved:
That the draft of the Unemployment Insurance (Increase of Benefits and Reduction in Contributions) (Agriculture) Order, 1939, laid before this House on the ninth day of March in pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 59 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, be approved.

CANCER BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendment read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendment be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Elliot.]

Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 5, leave out Sub-section (9) and insert:
(9) Any order or agreement constituting under any enactment a joint board or joint committee to discharge the functions of two or more councils under this Section may provide for the co-option of such number of members of the board or committee as may be specified in the order or agreement:
Provided that the number so specified shall not exceed one-third of the total number of the members of the board or committee.

10.46 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It carries out an undertaking which was given in this House on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) and supported by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). It is not a party Amendment, but is brought forward on behalf of local authorities to deal with the question of co-option. The Amendment carries out the pledge which was given in this House that we would look into this matter and try and get an appropriate Amendment drafted to cover the point if hon. Members withdrew their Amendment. They did so, and these words have been inserted in another place.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I propose to ask my hon. Friends to agree with the Lords in this Amendment. It does secure a greater control by local authorities over the principle of co-option. Before it was rather mandatory, but now it is permissive. If local authorities do not want it they need not have it; and in any case they can control its extent. The extent of co-option contemplated is perhaps a little excessive. That will be within the control of the local authorities making the agreement. I would only add one other point, and that is that I assume the Minister, in making an order requiring the establishment of a joint committee between the local authorities, will take the opportunity of ascertaining the views of the local authorities concerned as to any co-option or any degree of co-option


before he actually makes the order so that he will observe the same principle as far as he can as if the local authorities themselves should voluntarily make an agreement. Subject to those points I think the Amendment that has been put in pursuance of the wishes of the House, including the hon. Member for Stone, who was speaking for the County Councils Association, is an Amendment of a democratic character and is in the right direction and should commend itself to the House.

Sir Joseph Lamb: As one who had the honour of moving the Amendment and who undertook to withdraw it on the undertaking given by the Minister, I should like to say that we appreciate the present Amendment.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I should like to point out that whereas the previous arrangement was that the board should not exceed one-half of the committee, it will now not exceed one-third of the members of the committee. It is an important constitutional proposal where it is always doubtful how far co-option is desirable in a representative assembly, and I think it is as well to point out that a definite limit is put on co-option in the future. We are very glad that this has been embodied in the proposed Amendment.

COTTON INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION) [Money].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the better organisation of the cotton industry and certain industries related thereto, and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, it is expedient—
(1) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament to the Cotton Industry Board constituted under the said Act, in respect of each of the five years beginning with the year nineteen hundred and forty, of contributions towards expenses incurred by the board in the exercise of their powers—
(a) to conduct, and to promote or en-courage, research and investigation in matters relating to the consumption of products of the industry as denned by the said Act, and

(b) to take measures for increasing the consumption of such products, so, however, that such contributions in respect of any year shall not in the aggregate exceed one-half of such expenses for that year or forty thousand pounds, whichever is the less;
(2)to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or moneys provided by Parliament, to the board administering any scheme under the said Act which is therein referred to as a redundancy scheme, of such sums as may, by virtue of the said Act or any order of the Board of Trade there under, be payable by the Board of Trade for the purpose of securing that the revenue of the board administering the scheme is sufficient to enable them to meet their liabilities in respect of money borrowed by them and to defray their other expenses;
(3)to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of the United Kingdom of any sums which, in accordance with the said Act or any order of the Board of Trade there under, are paid to the Board of Trade by the board administering such a scheme as aforesaid; and
(4)to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of the administrative expenses incurred by the Board of Trade for the purposes of the said Act."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolutions."

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Hammersley: Before the House passes the Report stage of this Resolution I should just like to set on record what are the exact facts in respect of the contribution which the Government is giving to the cotton trade in this Financial Resolution. We are living in times when Governments are making considerable contributions to various industries. I understand the facts are that the maximum contribution by the Treasury is some £40,000. I would like to give it as a fact that the contributions of the Treasury in relation to the financial burdens which are put upon the industry are comparatively small. As I understand it the Bill will impose upon the industry a burden of some £110,000 per annum and it will impose upon them financial burdens in respect of levies which are unlimited and unspecified in amounts. It would not be right at this time for the country to get the view that the Treasury are giving large contributions to the industry when in fact their contribution in relation to the burdens they are imposing upon the industry is comparatively small. I shall be most happy if the Under-Secretary in


replying can confirm whether my interpretation of the Financial Resolution is right or not.

10.54 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): I think that my hon. Friend is quite right as far as he goes but he has not covered quite the whole of the ground and indeed it is not all apparent in the Bill. There are three categories of expenditure shown in the Bill and they are outlined in Schedule 5. My hon. Friend has totalled up the maximum in four years time which was the upper limit and made it £110,000. But the Treasury is not contributing to all those three categories. The first category relates to research. The Government are already contributing to research through the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and they are making a considerable contribution to the Shirley Institute in Manchester. That does not appear in this Bill. In the second category, the Government can contribute, as my hon. Friend pointed out, a maximum of £40,000 a year—that is, on a pound-for-pound basis—as a maximum, or such lesser sum as the Board of Trade think fit; and it is only for approved services relating to market investigation and research, publicity and other measures for increasing the consumption of the products of the industry. The amount under the Schedule which can be subscribed by the industry for these purposes is £50,000, and I suggest, therefore, that the Treasury contribution of £40,000 should be set against that amount of £50,000.

The remaining category relates to statistics, which is a purely office function to which the Treasury should not be called upon to contribute. I may add that the amount which the Government are also contributing through the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research-to the Shirley Institute is £30,000 a year, which will be added to the figure of £40,000 which my hon. Friend quoted.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of Ticknall, Ingleby Township, Calke, and Smisby, in the rural district of Repton, and the parishes of Derby Hills Liberty, and Stanton-by-Bridge, and part of the Town-ship of Barrow-upon-Trent, in the rural district of Shardlow, all in the county of Derby, which was presented on the 10th day of March, 1939, be approved." — [Captain Austin Hudson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Captain Waterhouse.]

Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.